alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.29



March 23, 2004



Moore Medical Corp.

389 John Downey Drive

New Britain, Connecticut 06050

Attn: John Zinzarella



Ladies and Gentlemen:



Reference is hereby made to that certain Loan and Security Agreement dated as of January 26, 2001, as amended by each of (i)
that certain Amendment Agreement, dated as of March 27, 2003, (ii) that certain Second Amendment Agreement, dated as of August 8, 2003, and (iii) that certain Third Amendment Agreement, dated as of November 6, 2003 (as amended from time to time, the
Loan Agreement) by and between Moore Medical Corp. (the Borrower) and Fleet Capital Corporation (the Lender). Capitalized terms which are used herein without definition and which are defined
in the Loan Agreement shall have the same meanings herein as in the Loan Agreement.



Borrower has notified Lender that Borrower has failed to comply with clause (ii) of Paragraph 3 of Schedule 7.3 of the Loan Agreement for the two fiscal quarters ending December 27, 2003, and such failure has resulted
in an Event of Default under the Loan Agreement. As a result of such Event of Default, Borrower has requested that Lender waive such Event of Default. The Lender hereby waives the occurrence of such Event of Default as a result of the failure of the
Borrower to comply with clause (ii) of Paragraph 3 of Schedule 7.3 for the two fiscal quarters ending December 27, 2003.



The waiver set forth above shall be effective upon the payment by the Borrower to the Lender of a waiver fee in the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars
($10,000.00) on or before the date hereof, and shall be effective only for the event specified in the preceding paragraph occurring on or before December 27, 2003 and such waiver shall not entitle the Borrower to any future waivers in similar or
other circumstances.



If the foregoing terms are acceptable to
you, we would request that you indicate your agreement to those provisions by signing the counterpart of this letter enclosed herewith and returning such counterpart to us on or before the date set forth above.



Yours sincerely,FLEET CAPITAL CORPORATIONBy:         /s/ Lisa FreemanIts VP




---

ACCEPTED and AGREED as of

the date of the above letter:



|                               |  |                 |  | 
|------------------------------ |  | --------------- |  | 
|MOORE MEDICAL CORP.           
|                              
|By:     /s/ John M. Zinzarella
|                               |  | Its            
|                               |  | Duly Authorized



-2-
## WI.Uams.Renee|OST ) ^ ^'('^jMMo^^'^' ^ From : Tob i Goldber g [tobigoldberg@hotmail.com ] llAMSPORTATIO N Sent : Saturday , Novembe r06 , 201 0 10:5 5 A M .'KE TOPERATION S To : kbouchard@ogdensburg.org ; ctupper@ogdensburg.or g Subject : FW : Cap e Ai r701 0 '^O V ! 0 P PU S
I a m writin g i n support o fCap e Air' s continue d servic e fro m Alban yt o th e North Country
. I n th e man yyears I hav e travele d t o an d fro m Ogdensburg , Cap e Ai rha s provide d th e mos t consistent , friendly , an d direc t ai rservic e o fan y commute rairlin e i n th e las t 20 + years . Thei rflight s leav e an d arriv e a s schedule d an d th e custome rservic e staf fi s exceptional
. A s a frequen t passenger , the yhav e accommodate d m ylas t minut e requests, an d a t leas t onc e I wa s o n m ywa yt o airpor t whe n I called
. Thei rcusstome rservic e staf fi s helpful
. Whe n w e hav e misplace d o rforgotte n luggage , the ycalled , s o tha t w e ca n reclai m it
. A t $5 9 eac h way , th e fligh t i s reasonabl yprice d an d th e servic e provide s Ogdensburg , Massena , an d Watertow n a direc t lin k t o NY , Bosto n an d othe reasil yaccessibl e destinations
. Cap e Air' s servic e i s a wonderfu l convenienc e an d a n importan t economi clin k t o th e res t o fth e world
. Pleas e rene wthei rcontrac t an d encourag e th e othe rcommunitie s t o kee p Cap e Ai rflyin g t o Norther n NewYork
. Sincerely , Tob i LGoldber g 8 Universit yPar k Waltham , I^

A0245 3 (781 ) 209-183 9
EXHIBIT 32.2

P&F INDUSTRIES, INC.

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 P&F Industries, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph A. Molino, Jr., Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§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 results of operations of the Company.

|Date    March 28, 2008 | /s/JOSEPH A. MOLINO, JR.Joseph A. Molino, Jr.
Principal Financial Officer
|---------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 29, 2014

NO. 03-14-00168-CV

G. N. E.-A., a/k/a G. N. E., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND ROSE

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on March 7, 2014. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. Because 

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ MASIMO CORPORATION, Appellant

v.

APPLE INC., Appellee

______________________

2022

- 2069, 2022

- 2070, 2022

- 2071, 2022

- 2072

______________________ Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No s . IPR2021

- 00193, IPR2021

- 00195, IPR2021

- 00208, IPR2021

- 00209.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

S TEPHEN W. L ARSON , Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, Irvine, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by S TEPHEN C. J ENSEN , J AROM D. K ESLER , J OSEPH R. R E ; J EREMIAH H ELM , Washington, DC.

L AUREN A NN D EGNAN , Fish & Rich ardson P.C., Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by C HRISTOPHER D RYER , W ALTER K ARL R ENNER ; A SHLEY B OLT , Atlanta, GA.

______________________ Case: 22-2069 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 09/12/2023T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (L OURIE , P ROST , and C UNNINGHAM , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

September 12, 2023 Date /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow Jarrett B. Perlow Clerk of Court Case: 22-2069 Document: 38 Page: 2 Filed: 09/12/2023
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 AdvancePCS (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), David D. Halbert, as
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Yon Y. Jorden, as Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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) 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 the
Company.

  /s/ David D. Halbert
-------------------------------
David D. Halbert
Chief Executive Officer
August 13, 2002

  /s/ Yon Y. Jorden
-------------------------------
Yon Y. Jorden
Chief Financial Officer
August 13, 2002
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________ No. 07 - 19 - 00421 - CV

________________________ JORGE R. GARZA, APPELLANT

V. DAVID BOWERS, CHRISTOPHER CATRON, ADAM PIERCE, LESLIE DINWIDDIE, AND BRANDON JACOBSON, APPELLEES

On Appeal from the County Court Lamb C ounty, Texas Trial Court No. CC - 3352 ; Honorable James M. DeLoach , Presiding January 2 9 , 20 20 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PIRTLE , PARKER , and DOSS , JJ. P ending before this c ourt is a motion to dismiss this appeal filed by Appellant, Jorge R. Garza. Without passing on the merits of the appeal, Appellant’s motion is granted and the appeal is dismis sed. T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(a)(1). Having dismissed this appeal at Appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith. Per Curiam
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STEPHEN WINN

,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee. §

§

§ No. 24, 2020

§

§ Court Below

— Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ Cr. ID No. 0103012308 (N)

§

§

§

Submitted: January 22, 2020

Decided: March 3 , 2020

Before SEITZ

, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY

- REEVES

, Justices.

ORDE R

After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion

to affirm, and the record on appeal, w e conclude that the judgment below should be

affirm ed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned by th e Superior Court’s order,

dated December 23, 2019

, summarily dismissing the appellant’s fifth motion for

postconviction relief

. The appellant has not pleaded with particularity new evidence

of actual innocence or that a new, retroactive rule of constitutional law renders his2

conviction invalid. 1 Nor has he asserted any claim that the Superior Court lacked

jurisdiction

. 2

NOW, THERE FORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is

GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ G ary F

. T raynor

Justice

1 D EL

. S UPER

. C T

. C RIM

. R. 61(d)(2).

2 Id. R. 61(i)(5).
<PAGE>   1


EXHIBIT 11.1 COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               Three Months         Six Months
                                                  Ended               Ended
                                              June 30, 1997       June 30, 1997
                                              --------------     ---------------
<S>                                              <C>                 <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding..........     12,996,498          12,996,498   
                                                 ===========         ===========   
                                                                                   
Net loss attributable to common shares.......    $  (185,000)        $  (764,000)  
                                                 ===========         ===========   
                                                                                   
Net loss per common share....................    $     (0.01)        $     (0.06)  
                                                 ===========         ===========   
</TABLE>




                                      11
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 18, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 76492]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21207]

[[Page 76492]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4799-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001]

New Hampshire; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of New Hampshire (FEMA-4799-DR), dated July 10, 2024, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued July 22, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of New Hampshire is hereby amended to include the 
following area among those areas determined to have been adversely 
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of July 10, 2024.

    Grafton County for Public Assistance.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters);
    97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2024-21207 Filed 9-17-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
```
EXHIBIT 21

                   SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


The following is a list of subsidiaries of Registrant as of
March 31, 1996, other than subsidiaries which, considered in the
aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not constitute a
significant subsidiary as defined by Securities and Exchange
Commission Regulation S-X
<TABLE>
                                                    STATE OF
          NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                      INCORPORATION
<S>                                               <C>
Acceptance Insurance Holdings Inc. (1)            Nebraska
Radice Lands, Inc. (1)                            Florida
The Redland Group, Inc. (1)                       Iowa
Acceptance Insurance Services, Inc. (2)           Nebraska
Acceptance Insurance Company (2)                  Nebraska
Redland Transportation, Inc. (2)                  North Carolina
Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Company (3)        Nebraska
Phoenix Indemnity Insurance Company (4)           Arizona
Major Realty Corporation (5)                      Delaware
American Agrisurance Inc. (6)                     Iowa
Redland Insurance Company (7)                     Iowa
Agro International, Inc. (8)                      Iowa
Crop Insurance Marketing, Inc. (9)                Iowa
American Agrijusters, Co. (10)                    Iowa
American Growers Ins. Company (10)                Nebraska
U.S. Ag Insurance Services Inc. (11)              Texas
Acceptance Casualty Insurance Company (10)        Texas
PRSCI, Inc. (10)                                  Texas
Acceptance Premium Finance Company (12)           Arizona
<FN>
_______________

(1)  A wholly owned subsidiary of Acceptance Insurance Companies
     Inc.

(2)  A wholly owned subsidiary of Acceptance Insurance Holdings
     Inc.

(3)  A wholly owned subsidiary of Acceptance Insurance Company.

(4)  An 80% owned subsidiary of Acceptance Insurance Company, 20%
     of which is owned by the Registrant.

(5)  An approximately 33.1% owned subsidiary of Acceptance
     Insurance Company.

(6)  A wholly owned subsidiary of The Redland Group, Inc.

(7)  An approximately 99.99% owned subsidiary of The Redland
     Group, Inc.

(8)  An approximately 80% owned subsidiary of The Redland Group,
     Inc.

(9)  A wholly owned subsidiary of American Agrisurance Inc.

(10) A wholly owned subsidiary of Redland Insurance Company.

(11) An approximately 60% owned subsidiary of Redland Insurance
     Company.

(12) A 50% owned subsidiary of Registrant.

</FN>
</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


  We have issued our report dated March 19, 2001, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of Oshman's Sporting Goods, Inc. and
Subsidiaries included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
February 3, 2001. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said
report in the Registration Statements of Oshman's Sporting Goods, Inc. on
Form S-8, File No. 33 14665, File No. 33-41404, File No. 33-28357,
File No. 33-53451, File No. 33-54221 and File No. 33-64515.



/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP



Houston, Texas
March 19, 2001
Exhibit 24.2

                    Certified Copy of Resolutions Adapted by
                  Unanimous Written to Action Without a Meeting
                          of the Board of Directors of
                       Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company
                            Effective March 16, 1998


     FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Power of Attorney as presented to and executed
by the Directors in connection with the execution of this written consent be,
and hereby is, approved in form and content for purposes of filing the Form 10-K
Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 1997 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.



     I do hereby certify that the above is a full, true and complete extract
from a unanimous written consent to action without a meeting of the Board of
Directors of Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, effective March 16, 1998.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Corporate
Seal of said Panhandle Pipe Line Company this 30th day of March, 1998.



                                             /s/ Robert T. Lucas III
                                             -----------------------
                                                 Robert T. Lucas III
                                                 Assistant Secretary




<PAGE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 4431

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. JAMES GRAY, Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Wheeling

. John Preston Bailey , District Judge. ( 5:20

- cr - 00044

- JPB

- JPM

- 1 )

Submitted : April 27, 2023 Decided: June 6, 2023

Before WILKINSON and HEYTENS , Cir cuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: Frank C. Walker II, FRANK WALKER LAW, Clairton, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. William Ihlenfeld, United States Attorney, Jennifer T. Conklin, Assistant United States Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-4431 Doc: 30 Filed: 06/06/2023 Pg: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM: James Gray appeals his 120

- month sentence imposed following a jury conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2018) . On appeal, Gray argues that his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We affirm. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse

- of

- discretion standard.” United States v. Torres

- Reyes , 952 F.3d 147, 151 (4th Cir.
2 020) (internal quotation marks omitted). Gray argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court erred by failing to incrementally depart and explain its incremental departure from a criminal history category of VI to an ext rapolated category of IX. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court deviated from the Guidelines range based on Gray’s extensive criminal history , its impact on the community , the need to promote respect for the law, and the need for deterrence. Thus, Gray’s sentence i s not procedurally unreasonable

. Next, Gray argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the extent of the variance was not justified by the applicable § 3553(a) factors and was greater than necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing

. Having reviewed the record and accorded due deference to the district court, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in varying upward from a 70

- to 87

- month Guidelines range to a 120

- month sentence. USCA4 Appeal: 21-4431 Doc: 30 Filed: 06/06/2023 Pg: 2 of 33 We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-4431 Doc: 30 Filed: 06/06/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
#### BARKMAN et al. v. STATE.

No. 20098.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 22, 1939.

Rehearing Denied April 12, 1939.

Rogers & Spurlock, of Fort Worth, for appellants.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Judge.

On August 20, 1937, an indictment against S. T. Barkman was returned into the Criminal District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, charging him with having removed from the State an automobile upon which he had theretofore executed a valid mortgage in writing. On the 23d of August, 1937, Barkman entered into an appearance bond in the sum of one thousand dollars with Hal O.. McConnell and J. A. Petty as sureties. On the. 18th day of January, 1938, Barkman’s case was called for trial. He failed to appear. Forfeiture was taken on his bond and judg*662ment nisi entered against him and his sureties for the amount of the bond.

Upon proper notice a trial was had on June 29, 1938, to determine whether said judgment nisi should be made final, which trial resulted in entering final judgment against Barkman and his surety J. A. Petty, but with a direction that the State take nothing against the surety McConnell. From this final judgment J. A. Petty prosecutes this appeal. Upon the trial to determine whether the judgment nisi should be made final the evidence is substantially the same as that set out in the opinion in Henry Darwin Caldwell et al. v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 126 S.W.2d 654, this day decided. It is not necessary to prolong this opinion by a re-statement of the facts. The same reasons which resulted in an affirmance in the cause mentioned calls for the same action here, and the judgment is affirmed.

On Appellants’ Motion for Rehearing.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

After carefully .re-examining the record in the light of appellants’ motion for rehearing, we are constrained to adhere to the conclusion expressed in the original opinion.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

PER- CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court. ,