alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex-10.2

 

 PROMISSORY NOTE
 

 

 December 8, 2016
 

 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Puebla Resources Corp., a Nevada Corporation, promises to pay Alejandro Vargas, on or before December 31, 2019, the amount of Twenty Two Thousand Dollars ($22,000.00) in the currency of the United States, plus simple interest on the principal amount of this Promissory Note accrued at a rate of 6% per annum.
 

 Time shall be the essence of this Promissory Note.
 

 This Promissory Note shall be governed by and constituted in accordance with the laws of the State of Nevada.
 

 PUEBLA RESOURCES CORP.
 

 

 

 

 per /s/ Alejandro Vargas
      Alejandro Vargas, Pres., CFO
#### M. K. KENNEDY, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 33129.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 15, 1961.

*886Keith, Mehaffy, McNicholas & Weber, Beaumont (Quentin Keith, Beaumont, of counsel), for appellant.

Ramie Griffin, Crim. Dist. Atty., Jim Vol-lers, Asst. Dist. Atty., Anthony G. Brocato, Asst. City Atty., Beaumont, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

This is an appeal from a prosecution under a complaint charging a violation of a city ordinance of the City of Beaumont which prohibits the blowing of a railroad whistle except where there is imminent danger of an accident; the punishment assessed in the County Court at Law on appeal was a fine in the sum of $125.

Under such a complaint, it became incumbent upon the prosecution to prove:

(1) That appellant blew the whistle, and

(2) That there was no imminent danger of an accident at the time.

The proof showed that the whistle was blown as the railway engine which appellant was operating approached Calder Avenue, the second most heavily traveled street in the city. The State produced no witnesses at the scene. Appellant, testifying in his own behalf, said that he saw no automobiles approaching but qualified that statement by saying that his vision in one direction was obscured by a building situated on the corner.

From this it is apparent that the State failed to prove the allegation in the complaint that there was no imminent danger of an accident.

Finding the evidence insufficient to support the conviction, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

WOODLEY, P. J., absent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           7,877                  14,550
<SECURITIES>                                    73,596                  40,506
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,509                  13,366
<ALLOWANCES>                                       421                     295
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               105,379                  71,656
<PP&E>                                          19,972                  14,447
<DEPRECIATION>                                (10,851)                 (5,676)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 114,782                  81,720
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,942                  23,135
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        95,068                  81,627
<OTHER-SE>                                     (6,229)                (23,053)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   114,782                  81,720
<SALES>                                         86,365                  49,929
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                86,365                  49,929
<CGS>                                            1,149                     346
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,556                   8,049
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                57,087                  47,559
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                      52
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  16                      53
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,547                 (3,278)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,522                   1,593
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,025                 (4,871)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,025                 (4,871)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.54                  (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.48                  (0.18)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                              BAYCORP HOLDINGS, LTD

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Annual Report of BayCorp Holdings, Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2001 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Frank W. Getman Jr., President and Chief Executive 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:

      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 BayCorp Holdings, Ltd. as of December 31, 2001.



Date:  January 30, 2003                    /s/ Frank W. Getman Jr.
                                           -----------------------
                                           Frank W. Getman Jr.
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
tllt_ex101.htm

EXHIBIT 10.1

 

SHARE CANCELLATION/ RETURN TO TREASURY AGREEMENT

 

THIS AGREEMENT made the 14th day of March, 2017.

 

BETWEEN:

Telehealthcare, Inc.

(the " Company ")

 

AND:

Derek Cahill

(the " Shareholder ")

 

WHEREAS:

 

A. The Shareholder controls 115,500,000 shares of the Company’s common stock and wishes to cancel 73,000,000 of such shares (the “ Shareholder Shares ”) 

 

B. The Shareholder agrees to the cancellation of the Shareholder Shares to help the company raise future forms of capital.

 

NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein (the sufficiency whereof is hereby acknowledged by the parties hereto), the parties hereby agree to and with each other as follows:

 


	
1. 
	
CANCELLATION OF THE SHAREHOLDER SHARES




 


	
 
	
1.1 
	
The Shareholder Shares shall be cancelled effective on the date of this Agreement.




 


	
2. 
	
RELEASE




 


	
 
	
2.1 
	
The Shareholder, together with his affiliates, shareholders, heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, does hereby remise, release and forever discharge the Company, its respective directors, officers, shareholders, employees and agents, and their respective successors and assigns, of and from all claims, causes of action, suits and demands whatsoever which the Shareholder ever had, now or may have howsoever arising out of the original grant and this cancellation of the Shareholder Shares.




 


	
3. 
	
COUNTERPARTS




 


	
 
	
3.1 
	
This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which will be deemed to be an original and all of which will together constitute one and the same instrument.




 


	
4. 
	
ELECTRONIC MEANS




 


	
 
	
4.1 
	
Delivery of an executed copy of this Agreement by electronic facsimile transmission or other means of electronic communication capable of producing a printed copy will be deemed to be execution and delivery of this Agreement as of the date set forth on page one of this Agreement.




 


	 
	1
	

 
	 



  


	
5. 
	
FURTHER ASSURANCES




 


	
 
	
5.1 
	
As and so often as may be required, the parties will execute and deliver all such further documents, do or cause to be done all such further acts and things, and give all such further assurances as in the opinion of the Company or its counsel are necessary or advisable to give full effect to the provisions and intent of

this Agreement.




 


	
6. 
	
PROPER LAW




 


	
 
	
6.1 
	
This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the law of the State of Wyoming




 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed and delivered this Agreement.

 


	
Telehealthcare, Inc.
		
				
 

	
Per:
	
/s/ Derek Cahill
		
	
 
	
Authorized Signatory
		
				
	
 
	
/s/ Derek Cahill
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
Derek Cahill
		



 

 


	
2
**Exhibit 31.4**

 

I, Dale E. Parker, Chief Financial Officer of Paperweight Development Corp., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Appleton Papers Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact 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 includedin 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 establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; 

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. Theregistrant’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 registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 7, 2003
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON APPELLEE’S

MOTION FOR EN BANC RECONSIDERATION

Appellate case name: Jefferson County, Texas v. Ellarene Farris, Individually and as 

Personal Representative of the Heirs and Estate of James Farris

Appellate case number: 01-17-00493-CV

Trial court case number: 2005-09580

Trial court: 11th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: October 12, 2018

Party filing motion: Appellee, Ellarene Farris, Individually and as Personal Representative 

of the Heirs and Estate of James Farris

The motion for reconsideration en banc is DENIED.

PER CURIAM

En banc court consists of: Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Keyes, Higley, Lloyd, Goodman, 

Landau, Hightower, and Countiss.

Justice Kelly not participating.

Date: February 12, 2019
No. 99-40811 - 1 -

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-40811 Summary Calendar

JEHAAD A.M.E. SAAHIR, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:98-CV-1660

-------------------- May 5, 2000 Before JOLLY, JONES and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Jehaad A.M.E. Saahir, Texas prisoner # 291515, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Saahir’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Saahir argues that the district court erred in failing to address four grounds of error raised in his application. He also argues that the district court erred in finding that he had not alleged that he was eligible for mandatory supervision.No. 99-40811 - 2 - Saahir is correct on both counts. The district court failed to address the first four claims raised by Saahir challenging Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 498.005 (West 1998) and the TDCJ policy adopted pursuant to that statute on due process, equal protection, and ex post facto grounds. Saahir has made a credible showing that the district court erred. Murphy v. Johnson , 110 F.3d 10, 11 (5th Cir. 1997). A COA is GRANTED, the judgment of the district court is VACATED, and this case is REMANDED for consideration of those claims, including consideration of whether Saahir should have raised these claims in one of his earlier § 2254 applications and whether his attempt to raise them in this application runs afoul of the prohibition against filing successive § 2254 applications contained in the AEDPA, 28 U.S.C. § 2244. Saahir alleged that he was eligible for mandatory supervision in the district court in the supplemental petition filed in response to questions posed by the magistrate judge. He alleged that he had served 20 calendar years and that if his good time was restored he would be eligible for mandatory supervision. Saahir has made a credible showing that the district court erred in dismissing his application because he had not stated whether he was eligible for mandatory supervision. A COA is GRANTED on this issue also, the judgment of the district court is VACATED, and this case is REMANDED for the district court to consider the merits of Saahir’s claim that he was deprived of due process at his disciplinary proceedings. GRANT COA, VACATE AND REMAND.
EXHIBIT 31.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Maurice H. Madrid, certify that:

1. I have reviewed  this  quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB of Sales  Strategies,
Inc.;

2.  Based on my  knowledge,  this  annual  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 annual
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included  in this annual  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 annual report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures  to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others  within those  entities,  particularly  during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures  as of a date  within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  based  on our  evaluation  as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors:

a) all significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which  could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability  to record,  process,
summarize and report  financial data and have  identified  for the  registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any  fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves  management  or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: September 22, 2003              /s/Maurice H. Madrid
                                      ---------------------
                                      Maurice H. Madrid
                                      Acting Financial Officer/
                                      Director
**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**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, each of the    undersigned officers of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International    hereby certifies, to the best of such officer’s knowledge,    that:     1. The Registrant’s quarterly report on    Form 10-Q/A    for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (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 Registrant as of and for the periods presented in    the Report. /s/  J.    Michael Pearson     J. Michael Pearson    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer     Date: April 14, 2008 /s/  Peter    J. Blott     Peter J. Blott    Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer     Date: April 14, 2008     A signed original of this written statement required by    Section 906 has been provided to Valeant Pharmaceuticals    International and will be furnished to the Securities and    Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.     This certification accompanies the quarterly report on    Form 10-Q/A    to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and    Exchange Commission and is not deemed to be incorporated by    reference into any filing of Valeant Pharmaceuticals    International under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or    the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made    before or after the date of the quarterly report on    Form 10-Q),    irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in    such filing.
### R eg u l a t ory Eva l u a t io n Doc ke t No . FAA- D irectorate I de n tifie r : -AD 

### (f., •ou mak e clwnges to the l'lt!ues in the whle helo11·. you 1111/St ensure the totals llfJdote according/!'. ({ 

### th e. 1 · do not. click (or Tah ) into and 

### then our (?I 

### tlu ! 

### c hanged cell. Es tim a te d Cos t s: Action Cos t s per P ro du c t (e.g., aircraft , engine, (e.g., In spection , prope ll e r , appliance) Work-hours Labor Parts Cos t To tal Cos t s Numb e r of Total Cost rep lacement) (i n c lud e cost (labor + 

## u.s. for U.S. Fl ee t Do n o t includ e on condition cos ts h er e access, tes tin g, (@$85 / h p a r1 s) R eg is t e r e d a n

d close-up) ou r ) Prod u cts Mod i ficatio n 

## 20 $5,320 

### 5

**ev**

**,** 

### o n 

### nt 

### 1 M4 ' n-t. 

## flft>c.. rr. A ..._.

(



## .. I

I



# .. I The k n ow n n umber of product s i n co mplianc e: To t al Cos t s o f comp l ian ce f o r 

### U. S. n ee t: $35,100 Costs covered under wa rran ty 

### (if/mown) $ O n -Con diti on Cos t s: Action Work-hour s Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Produ c t (e.g., In s p ec tion , ( includ e access, (@$85 / ho ur)

replacement) t es tin g, and closeup) If I



### S p e ci a l c on s id e r ·ati o o s f o r Eco no mi c A n a l ys i s (Use thi s field to explain anything in th e Estima ted Costs table that was assumed or mi g ht n o t be obvio us. Th isfield ca n also be u sed to explain warranty cos t s) :

### Exec u tive Order 12866: 

### Could the AD be considered a .. sign i ficant r egulato r y action .. ? 

# G YES*0

**0~** 

### * Exp lanatio n : DOT 

### Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

### I s the AD s ignificant? 

# G YES* 

# D

**NO~** 

### *Explanatio n : Rcgulator·y Flexibility Act: 

### Wi ll the AD have a s ignificant econom i c i mpact on a s ub s tantia l n umbe r o f sm all e ntiti es? Ex plain fo r e ith er a Yes or No answer.



# ~ YES O

**O~** 

### Explanati o n : Int ras tate Av i atio n in A la ska : 

### Thi s AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriat e to include s pecific requirements for a ir craft operated in A la ska w h ere aviation might be the only mode of trans p ortation ? 

## G) YES*0

**NO~** 

### *Ex pl anatio n :
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 130938 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STAT E OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 130938 COA: 268376 Kalamazoo CC: 04-001546-FH JAMES EDWARD ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the April 3, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l0724 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 31, 2006

Clerk