alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.4
                        PROMISSORY NOTE

                        PROMISSORY NOTE

Principal amount $19,469.04                     Date: December 29, 2003

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, RMD Technologies, Inc. hereby promise to
pay to the order of Patrick A. Galliher the sum of Nineteen Thousand
Four Hundred Sixty Nine Dollars and Four Cents, together with interest
thereon at the rate of 1% per month on the unpaid balance. Said sum
shall be paid upon demand.

     This note shall at the option of any holder thereof be
immediately due and payable upon the occurrence of any of the
following:  1) Breach of any condition of any security interest,
mortgage, loan agreement, pledge agreement or guarantee granted as
collateral security for this note. 2) Breach of any condition of any
loan agreement, security agreement or mortgage, if any, having a
priority over any loan agreement, security agreement or mortgage on
collateral granted, in whole or in part, as collateral security for
this note. 3) Upon the death, incapacity, dissolution or liquidation
of any of the undersigned, or any endorser, guarantor to surety
hereto. 4) Upon the filing by any of the undersigned of an assignment
for the benefit of creditors, bankruptcy or other form of insolvency,
or by suffering an involuntary petition in bankruptcy or receivership
not vacated within thirty (30) days.

     In the event this note shall be in default and placed for
collection, then the undersigned agree to pay all reasonable attorney
fees and costs of collection. All payments hereunder shall be made to
such address as may from time to time be designated by any holder.

     The undersigned and all other parties to this note, whether as
endorsers, guarantors or sureties, agree to remain fully bound until
this note shall be fully paid and waive demand, presentment and
protest and all notices hereto and further agree to remain bound,
notwithstanding any extension, modification, waiver, or other
indulgence or discharge or release of any obligor hereunder or
exchange, substitution, or release of any collateral granted as
security for this note. No modification or indulgence by any holder
hereof shall be binding unless in writing; and any indulgence on any
one occasion shall not be an indulgence for any other or future
occasion. Any modification or change in terms, hereunder granted by
any holder hereof, shall be valid and binding upon each of the
undersigned, notwithstanding the acknowledgement of any of the
undersigned, and each of the undersigned does hereby irrevocably grant
to each of the others a power of attorney to enter into any such
modification on their behalf. The rights of any holder hereof shall be
cumulative and not necessarily successive. This note shall take effect
as a sealed instrument and shall be construed, governed and enforced
in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

RMD Technologies, Inc.


By: /s/  Pat Galliher
Pat Galliher, President
#### AKILAH BITTLE *v.*COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SERVICES

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15973.

*Robert A. Solomon*and *Kathleen A. Sullivan,*in support of the petition.

*Karen Haabestad Fritzingex,*assistant attorney general, in opposition.

Decided July 8, 1998

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 48 Conn. App. 711 (AC 17071), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that service of process pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (c) is not perfected upon depositing in the mail, certified mail, return receipt requested, a copy of the appeal papers, addressed to the proper agency or the attorney general within forty-five days of the agency decision?”
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 209 (Friday, October 27, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 64475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27561]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33949]


Albany & Eastern Railroad Company--Acquisition and Operation 
Exemption--Union Pacific Railroad Company

    Albany & Eastern Railroad Company (AERC), a Class III carrier, has 
filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to acquire by 
lease from Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) and operate the Mill 
City Branch extending from milepost 689.64, at Page, and milepost 
725.71, at Mill City, a distance of 48.57 miles in Marion and Linn 
Counties, OR (line).\1\ AERC will replace the Willamette Valley Railway 
Company (WVRY) as the lessee and operator of the line.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The line serves the intermediate stations of Lebanon, 
Crabtree, and Lyons, OR. The verified notice indicates that a 
milepost equation near Tallman, OR, 684.87=697.37, makes the line 
12.50 miles longer than would appear from the terminal mileposts.
    \2\ WVRY was authorized to lease and operate the line pursuant 
to Willamette Valley Railway Company--Acquisition, Lease and 
Operation Exemption--Southern Pacific Transportation Company, 
Finance Docket No. 32249 (ICC served Mar. 5, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The transaction is expected to be consummated on or after October 
20, 2000.
    If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, 
the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to reopen the proceeding to 
revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. 
The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the 
transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 33949, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be 
served on Fritz R. Kahn, Esq., Fritz R. Kahn, P.C., 1920 N Street, 
N.W., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our website at 
``WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.''

    Decided: October 19, 2000.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-27561 Filed 10-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
#### THOMAS v. STATE.

No. 24692.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 8, 1950.

Alvin R. Allison, Levelland, Earl R. Allison, Levelland, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for driving a motor vehicle on a public highway while intoxicated, in which a fine of $50.00 was assessed.

The evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction. The appeal brings forward two bills of exception. The first of these complains of the testimony of a policeman who said that he weighed 320 pounds, that the defendant weighed about 145 pounds and that it would take no more beer to make the defendant drunk than it would him, the policeman. Further, the witness said, as recited in the bill, that he could not tell whether or not a man was drunk by smelling his breath, but could tell that the defendant was drunk by the way he acted, concluding, “Yes, I had him to walk.”

Objection to this is urged on the ground that it violates a constitutional provision in forcing him to produce evidence against himself, by forcing him to walk. We find nothing in the record to show when and where the policeman had him to walk, nor what the result was, nor that same is the basis for his conclusion that appellant was drunk. If an officer should arrest a man at any place other than in -his cell it would be presumed he would have him to walk and we see no reason why he would not be permitted to observe that walk and testify as to the results. The *811many cases of foot prints, finger prints, etc., are in point.

The second 'bill complains of the testimony of a witness who said he saw a blue Mercury car being driven recklessly at the very time alleged; that he saw it hit a 'truck and tear off a door; and that he saw the same car stopped in front of the funeral home. The witness further said that he did not know whether this defendant was driving that car or not. Objection was made that the witness had not identified the blue Mercury car about which he was testifying as being the one driven by the accused.

Standing alone there would be merit in this objection, but the evidence of the State shows that the policeman stopped appellant in such a car at that particular time and place. The evidence to which this objection was lodged was admitted by the court on a theory that it tended to impeach the evidence of the appellant, who said that he did not drive recklessly. The objection lodged to this evidence is not tenable and it would seem that the evidence is admissible, not only for the purpose offered but in support of the testimony of the officer, which testimony had been denied by the accused.

We find no reversible error and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
<PAGE>   1





                                    C2, INC.

                            EXHIBIT 21 - SUBSIDIARIES

This exhibit sets forth the Registrant's corporate subsidiaries at December 31,
2000 and their states of incorporation. These subsidiaries do business under
their own corporate names and are included in the Consolidated Financial
Statement.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                            C2, INC. OWNERSHIP
                                                             JURISDICTION OF     --------------------------------------------
                        NAME                                  INCORPORATION             DIRECT               INDIRECT
------------------------------------------------------     --------------------- --------------------- ----------------------
<S>                                                        <C>                    <C>                    <C>
ProSource Dedicated  Facility Solutions, LLC                    Delaware                                       100%
TLC Holdings, Inc.                                              Wisconsin              100%
Total Logistic Control, LLC                                     Delaware                99%                      1%
Zero Zone, Inc.                                                 Wisconsin             70.6%
</TABLE>







                                       48
#### PRICE v. STATE.

No. 24965.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 8, 1950.

Will R. Wilson, Jr., Criminal Dist. Atty., Charles S. Potts, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

*577BEAUCHAMP, Judge.'

The appeal is from a conviction for murder, with a death penalty.

The indictment charges appellant with the murder of Ed F. Williams by shooting him with a gun, on the 20th day of November, 1945. The evidence before the jury followed his plea of guilty. Several witnesses were introduced in evidence 'who identified appellant and testified that he came into the drugstore of which the deceased was a part owner, walked behind the prescription counter and shot him down and made his escape. The long delay in his trial was occasioned by the fact that he successfully eluded the officers and was not apprehended until December, 1949.

It will not be necessary to review the evidence. The accused was positively identified in court and the evidence is not challenged in any way. It sufficiently sustains the verdict of the jury. There were no exceptions to the court’s charge and no bills of exception appear in the .record.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.15

                       SUMMARY OF CERTAIN COMPENSATION FOR
                     DIRECTORS OF PARK NATIONAL CORPORATION

      ANNUAL RETAINER AND MEETING FEES

      Each director of Park National Corporation ("Park") who is not an employee
of Park or one of Park's subsidiaries (a "non-employee director") receives, on
the date of the regular meeting of the Park Board of Directors held during the
fourth fiscal quarter, an annual retainer in the form of 120 common shares
awarded under the Park National Corporation Stock Plan for Non-Employee
Directors of Park National Corporation and Subsidiaries (the "Directors' Stock
Plan"). During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 (the "2005 fiscal year"),
each non-employee director also received $750 for each meeting of the Board of
Directors of Park attended and $300 for each meeting of a committee of the Board
of Directors attended. At the January 17, 2006 meeting of the Board of
Directors, the Board approved an increase in the cash compensation to be paid to
directors. Effective on and after January 18, 2006, each non-employee director
will receive $1,000 for each meeting of the Park Board of Directors attended and
$400 for each meeting of a committee of the Park Board of Directors attended. If
the date of a meeting of the full Board of Directors is changed from that
provided for by resolution of the Board and a non-employee director is not able
to attend the rescheduled meeting, he or she receives the meeting fee as though
he or she attended the meeting. In addition, each member of the Executive
Committee of the Park Board of Directors will receive a $2,500 annual cash
retainer and each member of the Audit Committee of the Park Board of Directors
(other than the Chair) will receive a $2,000 annual cash retainer. The Chair of
the Audit Committee will receive a $5,000 annual cash retainer.

      Each non-employee director of Park also serves on the board of directors
of one of Park's subsidiary banks and receives, on the date of the regular
meeting of the Park Board of Directors held during the fourth fiscal quarter, an
annual retainer in the form of 60 common shares of Park awarded under the
Directors' Stock Plan and, in some cases, a specified amount of cash for such
service as well as fees for attendance at meetings of the board of directors of
the appropriate Park subsidiary bank (and committees of that board).

      C. Daniel DeLawder, William T. McConnell, William A. Phillips and David L.
Trautman receive no compensation for serving as members of the Board of
Directors of Park or of any subsidiary of Park.

      OTHER COMPENSATION

      William T. McConnell is employed by The Park National Bank, a subsidiary
of Park, in a non-executive officer capacity. In such capacity, he received the
amount of $33,000 during the 2005 fiscal year. William A. Phillips is employed
by Century National Bank, a subsidiary of Park, in a non-executive officer
capacity. In such capacity, he also received the amount of $33,000 during the
2005 fiscal year.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          12,560
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   63,084
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     48,598
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               147,571
<PP&E>                                          68,974
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 220,014
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           88,695
<BONDS>                                         30,067
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      8,773
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,801
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   220,014
<SALES>                                         87,345
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                87,345
<CGS>                                           53,584
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   53,584
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,548
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,161
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,842
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,496
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,496
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .39
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Office of the Secretary

The Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary will periodically publish summaries of proposed information collections projects and solicit public comments in compliance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. To request more information on the project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans and instruments, call the OS Reports Clearance Officer on (202) 690-6207.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

                    Proposed Projects 1. Annual Report for OPA Title X Family Planning Program Grantees—0990-0221—Revision—The Office of Population Affairs (OPA) collects annual data from Title X grantees to assure compliance with legislative and regulatory requirements and identify areas where grantees may require assistance.                     *Respondents:*                     Title X Family Planning Program Grantees;                     *Annual Number of Respondents:*                     85;                     *Average Burden per Response:*                     22 hours;                     *Total Burden:*                     1,870 hours.                

Send comments to Cynthia Agens Bauer, OS Reports Clearance Officer, Room 503H, Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.

Dated: October 19, 2000.

Dennis P. Williams,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Budget.

[FR Doc. 00-27834  Filed 10-30-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4150-34-M
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-16-0000427

18-MAR-2019

07:52 AM
JOSE DEMETRIO PINEDA,

Appellant, 

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-21-00143-CR

Appeal from the

109th District Court

Of Winkler, Texas

(TC# DC16-5584)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
#### MARMOR INSURANCE AGENCY, Movant, v. Ernie BATES, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 22, 1951.

Steinfeld & Steinfeld, Louisville, for movant.

Herman Frick and Louis H. Jull, Louisville, and J. T. Hatcher, Elizabethtown, for opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal denied. Judgment affirmed.
September 4, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JOCKQUAIL PIERRE MCCALL, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00671-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The 

record indicates that the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the 

appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
DISMISSED and Opinion Filed August 23, 2021 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-00153-CV IN THE INTEREST OF A.D.A., C.R.A., J.M.A., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 330th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-19-05934 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Justi ce Molberg, and Justice Goldstein Opinion by Chief Justice Burns When appellant Jose Arevalo failed to request the reporter’s record, we ordered this appeal submitted without a re porter’s record and a ppellant’s brief due by July 21, 2021. When no brief was filed, we notified appella nt by postcard dated July 26, 2021 and directed him to file his brief and a motion for an extension of time by August 5, 2021. We cautioned a ppellant that the failure to file a brief by that date would result in the dismissal of the a ppeal for want of prosecution. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(a)(1). To date, appellant has not f iled a brief, filed an exte nsion motion, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal.–2– Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c).

210153F.P05 /Robert D. Burns, III / ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
IN THE INTEREST OF A.D.A., C.R.A., J.M.A., CHILDREN
No. 05-21-00153-CV On Appeal from the 330th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-19-05934. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns. Justices Molberg and Goldstein participating. In accordance with this Court’s opi nion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. Judgment entered August 23, 2021