alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Commercial
                        Mortgage****Servicing**MAC
                        A0 357-030P.O.Box
                        4036, Concord, CA 945241320
                        Willow Pass Rd., Suite 300Concord,
                        CA 94520800
                        986-9711





Management
      Assertion


February
      21, 2006







As
      of and
      for the year, ended December 31, 2005, Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage
      Servicing, a division of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., which is a wholly owned
      subsidiary of Wells Fargo & Company, has complied in all material respects
      with the minimum servicing
      criteria set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's (MBA) *Uniform
      Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers* (USAP),
      except for minimum servicing standards V.4 and VI.1, which the MBA has
      interpreted as being inapplicable to the
      servicing of commercial and multi-family loans. As of and for the year ended
      December 31, 2005, Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Servicing had in effect
      a
      fidelity bond in the amount of $50,000,000 and an error and omissions policy
      in
      the amount of $50,000,000.




Very
      Truly Yours,





Wells
      Fargo Commercial Mortgage Servicing





/s/
      Kathryn O’Neal


Kathryn
      O’Neal


*Senior
      Vice President*


*Wells
      Fargo Commercial Mortgage Servicing*








/s/
      Margaret Gremore


Margaret
      Gremore


*Vice
      President*


*Wells
      Fargo Commercial Mortgage Servicing*
2Q 

Jack Oakman 

100 Singletree 

Stockbridge, GA 302814858 

March 7, 2010 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Secretary ofTransportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Retirees Support Delta's Haneda Application - Keep the USA a Global Participant 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

Delta Air Lines has submitted an application to provide new nonstop service from the U.S. to Tokyo's Haneda 

airport. As a retired employee ofDelta. I enthusiastically support this application. 

Under the new aviation agreement with Japan. Haneda will be reopened to U.S. carriers for the final time since 1976. 

Because ofits convenient location near central Tokyo, Haneda is the preferred airport for business travelers. 

Delta employees, and many of its retirees, have worked for many years to build Delta's business in Japan, and no 

U.S. airline bas invested more in Tokyo than Delta. Delta has a strong record of competitive trans-Pacific service. 

Bnt the reopening ofHaneda will put that investment and Delta jobs at risk ifthey are unable to compete. 

Delta's major competitors, the Star and oneworld Alli~bes,' have Japanese partners that dominate service at Haneda. 

Delta, which does not have a Japanese partner, would be at a serious disadvantage unless it is given the opportunity 

to compete at Haneda. 

If Delta is provided with the Haneda slots they need, all three of the major airline alliances - SkYTeam, Star and 

oneworld - will be able to compete on a level playing field. That new competition would provide tremendous 

benefits for Delta's customers and Delta's employees. 

I urge you to approve Delta's application and provide the .tr~uencies proposed to serve.Haneda from ~.attle..J)etroit, 

Los ADgilesand Honolulu. 

Sincerely, +-foblt- ~l1

f)~ JackOaknlan 


770-954-0166
Exhibit 10.17
 OSI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
AMENDED AND RESTATED STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AGREEMENT
 RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AGREEMENT OSI PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC
 WHEREAS
 NOW, THEREFORE
 1. Grant of Restricted Stock Units.
 2. Vesting and Forfeiture.
 3. Settlement of Restricted Stock Units.




---



##### 



4. Restriction on Transferability
 5. Securities Laws
 6. Withholding of Applicable Taxes.
 7. Subject to Terms of Plan.
 8. No Rights as Stockholder.
 -2-




---



##### 



9. Continued Employment or Service.
 10. Binding Effect
 11. Governing Law.
 12. Counterparts
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 OSI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.Name:Title:EMPLOYEE[EMPLOYEE NAME]Date
 -3-
Devany, Dennis (OST) 

From: Will Conroy [wconroy@conroyandconroy.com] 

..,Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 7:41 AM ~... To:" ~, " . Devany, Dennis (OST); Swanson, Brian (OST) 

.Subject: EAS at PBG - Colgan vs Cape Air 

Dennis:& Br.i!&il" 

Perhaps you've seen the "My Opinionllcolumn in today's Press Republican. If not here's the link. 

http://www.pressreptiblican;com!0204inmyopinion/localstory043225716.html?keyword=topstory I agree with 

Andrew Schonbek's view and encourage you not to go with Colgan as suggested by our county legislators butinstead to 

allow Cape Air to continue as the Essential Air Service provider to our community. Actually I believe our legislators may 

have acted totally inappropriately for a few reasons, among them that some of the votes were cast via email from FL 

which I understand may not be in accordance with law . 

. Thanks for your consideration in this matter. 


Respectfully, 


William L. Conroy, President 

Conroy & Conroy Contractors, Inc. 

48 Spellman Rd. 

Plattsburgh, NY 12901 

www.conroyandconroy.comwconroy@conroyandconroy.com 

Ph 518 562 2460: Fax 518 5622461: Cell 518 726 0333 

1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<MULTIPLIER>  1000

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                              22,584
<SECURITIES>                        11,592
<RECEIVABLES>                       16,109
<ALLOWANCES>                         1,366
<INVENTORY>                         15,083
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    67,304
<PP&E>                              38,029
<DEPRECIATION>                      23,139
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      86,623
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               14,354
<BONDS>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                            23,167
<OTHER-SE>                          49,102
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        86,623
<SALES>                             70,838
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    70,838
<CGS>                               44,976
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       44,976
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    15,448
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       175
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     12,649
<INCOME-TAX>                         4,174
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  8,475
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                         8,475
<EPS-BASIC>                         0.70
<EPS-DILUTED>                         0.68


</TABLE>
IMAGE TECHNOLOGY LABORATORIES, INC.


                     EXHIBIT 32.1 - ADDITIONAL CERTIFICATION

                            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 Quarterly Report of Image Technology Laboratories, Inc.,
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Barry Muradian, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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, as amended; and

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







/S/ BARRY C. MURADIAN
-----------------------

BARRY C. MURADIAN,
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER
AUGUST 15, 2005
EXHIBIT 1 - CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

To the Shareholders and the Board of Directors of Belmont
Bancorp.

     We consent to incorporation by reference of our report dated
January 23, 1996, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Belmont Bancorp. as of December 31, 1995 and 1994, and the
related consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity,
and statements of cash flows for each of the three years in the
period ended December 31, 1995.  Said report appears as Exhibit B
of Belmont Bancorp.'s annual form 10-K.
                            

s/S.R. Snodgrass A.C.
S.R. Snodgrass A.C.
Wheeling, WV
March 19, 1996
Exhibit 10.17


 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This First Amendment
to the Employment Agreement (the “1st Amendment”) is entered into by and between QS Energy, Inc. a Nevada corporation
(“Employer”) and Michael McMullen (“Employee”) (collectively, the “Parties”), effective as
of April 1, 2019 (the “Effective Date”).


 


RECITALS


 


		A.	Effective as of April 1, 2017, the Employer and Employee entered into an Employment Agreement (the
“Employment Agreement”);



 


		B.	It is now the desire of Employer and Employee to further amend the Employment Agreement.



 


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the promises and the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, the Parties agree as follows:


 


		I.	Section 4 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended and restated as follows:



 


Term of Employment.
Subject to earlier termination as provided in the Employment Agreement or as may be mutually agreed upon by the Parties, Employee
hereby agrees to continue to be employed by Employer until July 1, 2019 (“Term”) beginning on the Effective Date of
this Agreement, and Employer hereby agrees to employ Employee during such Term.


 


II.                
If there are any inconsistencies between the Employment Agreement and this 1st Amendment, the terms and conditions of this 1st
Amendment shall control.


 


III.              
Except for the changes set forth in this 1st Amendment, all terms and conditions in the Employment Agreement, as amended, shall
remain unchanged and in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.


 


	 	“EMPLOYER”
	 	 
	 	QS ENERGY, INC.
	 	 
	Date:	 
	By: 	/s/ Jason Lane
	 	Jason Lane, CEO
	 	
         

         

	 	“EMPLOYEE”
	 	 
	 	 
	Date: 	/s/ Michael McMullen
	 	Michael McMullen
Exhibit 32.1

﻿

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

﻿

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 of Aqua America, Inc. (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christopher H. Franklin, 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, to my knowledge:

﻿

|  | (1) |  | The Report of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m(a) or Section 78o(d)); and |
|--|-----|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

﻿

|  | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--|-----|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

﻿

﻿

﻿

| ﻿                              |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| ﻿                              |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| /s/ Christopher H. Franklin           |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Christopher H. Franklin               |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   |   |   |   |   |   |

February 24, 2017

﻿

----
#### Letia PIERCE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27516.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 30, 1955.

*813No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The conviction is for unlawfully selling whisky in a dry area; the punishment assessed is a fine of $300.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear regular and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Elbert KESLER, Appellant, v. W. D. CASEBOLT, Appellee.

No. 6380.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.

March 1, 1954.

*326Singleton & Trulove, Amarillo, for appellant.

LaFont, Tudor & Tunnell, Plainview, for appellee.

NORTHCUTT, Justice.

This-is an action brought by appellant, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, against appellee, hereinafter referred to as defendant, upon an oral contract for services rendered by plaintiff in obtaining and buying of certain oil and/or gas leases for defendant. The case was tried to á jury and after all of the evidence was in the judge, upon motion of defendant, instructed the jury to return a. verdict for the defendant, thereby holding appellant could not recover herein because .of the terms of Article-3995a of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes, Vernon’s • Ann,Civ.St., providing no action shall be brought in any court of this state for the recovery of any commission unless the-promise or-agreement upon which such action shall be brought, or. some memorandum thereof, shall be in writing and signed by the party to.be charged therewith or by some -person by him thereunto lawfully authorized. From this judgment appellant has perfected his appeal.

It was the contention of the plaintiff that he was entitled to a commission of 25 cents per acre for part of the leases he had purchased for defendant, 50 cents for some, and one dollar for some. Plaintiff also sought to recover $1258 which he alleges plaintiff obligated himself to pay to one C. B. Anderson for abstract work, C. B. Anderson is not a party to this suit, and plaintiff- does -:not have any proper pleadings herein showing that the plaintiff ever paid the ■ abstract bills or that such obligation was in fact the debt of defendant. Under the record in this case, we are of the opinion that Article 3995a of Vernon’s Civil Statutes of the State of Texas applies herein and that the trial court did not err in directing a verdict for defendant. Cowan v. F. H. E. Oil Co., Tex.Civ.App., 169 S.W.2d 994.

Case affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

﻿

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

﻿

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 of Essential Utilities, Inc. (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christopher H. Franklin, 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, to my knowledge:

﻿

|  | (1) |  | The Report of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m(a) or Section 78o(d)); and |
|--|-----|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

﻿

|  | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--|-----|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

﻿

﻿

﻿

| ﻿                                        |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| ﻿                                        |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| /s/ Christopher H. Franklin                     |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Christopher H. Franklin                         |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer |   |   |   |   |   |   |

February 28, 2020

﻿

----
#### PREFERRED LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Luther M. HOLLAND et ux., Appellees.

No. 5067.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

April 14, 1955.

Musselwhite & Thompson, Lufkin, Alto B. Cervin, Dallas, for appellant.

Charles K. Ruth, Lufkin, for appellees.

WALKER, Justice.

The policy sued upon indemnifies appel-lees against certain medical expenses but it excepts certain risks from appellant’s promise by the following provision:

> “Tuberculosis, cancer, abdominal hernia or rupture, or any disorder of the biliary tract, any disease of the heart, blood, or circulatory system or any sickness which results in a surgical operation listed under part 4, or sickness which results in any other surgical operation, shall be covered only if the cause thereof originates after this policy has been in force for the preceding six months.”

The appellee Mrs. Holland has pulmonary tuberculosis. Diagnosis that she had this disease was made during the first 6 months in which the policy was in force, and afterward but during this 6 months she received treatment in a sanitarium for this disease; and treatments of the disease have continued since she was discharged from the sanitarium. Appellees have brought this suit on the policy to recover the costs of these treatments.

Appellees argue that the provision for exception which we have quoted does not except tuberculosis from the appellant’s promise to pay unless this disease results in an operation, and they say that no operation was performed on Mrs. Holland. There may be a question, whether Mrs. Holland actually received an operation, but it is not material. We overrule the appellees’ contention and hold that the provision does except tuberculosis from the appellant’s promise to pay unless this disease originates after the period mentioned in the provision for exception, regardless of whether the disease does or does not result in or cause an operation.

Accordingly, appellant is not liable to appellees for the items in suit for Mrs. Holland’s disease plainly originated before the expiration of the period mentioned in the provision for exception. Helm v. Reserve Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 230 S.W.2d 566. Point 1 is sustained. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and judgment is here rendered in appellant’s behalf, that appellees take nothing.
Exhibit 31.3


Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934


I, Kenneth J. Zagzebski, certify that:


1.    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to annual report on Form 10-K of IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.; and


2.    Based on my knowledge, this Amendment 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.


Date:May 1, 2017/s/ Kenneth J. ZagzebskiKenneth J. ZagzebskiChief Executive Officer











1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      3,846,100
<SECURITIES>                                        0         
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            3,846,100 
<PP&E>                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              3,852,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          65,700
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                  3,779,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                3,852,800
<SALES>                                             0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              289,600
<CGS>                                               0         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                (51,400) 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              133,900
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               207,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                  168,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            38,900
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                   38,900
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.64
        

</TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 28, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 28, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17A0447. OLD FOURTH FORWARD, LLC v. TRINTEC PORTFOLIO SERVICES, 

LLC.

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this 

Court and with Court of Appeals Rules 22 (a) and 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration 

of errors and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals 

Rule 13.

On October 28, 2016, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors 

and a brief no later than November 07, 2016. As of the date of this order, the appellant's 

enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed 

abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

LOUANN STROTHMANN,

Respondent

v.

CHB SPORTS, INC. D/B/A HIESTER 

LANES,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 94 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of July, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.