alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.6C

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

$300,000.00                                                     January 13, 2000



         FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned hereby promises to pay to Verilink
Corporation ("Verilink") at Huntsville, Alabama, the principal amount of Three
Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000.00). All principal due under this Note shall
be paid on the earlier of (i) termination of the undersigned's employment by
Verilink for any reason provided, however that for purposes of this paragraph
(i), the principal balance of this Note will be reduced by 25% each full year
that the undersigned remains employed by Verilink; or (ii) within one (1) year
after the value of the undersigned's exercisable Verilink stock options exceed
$2,000,000 (fair market value of stock subject to exercisable options less total
exercise price of such options). Interest shall be forgiven.

         This Note may be prepaid at any time, in whole or in part, without
premium or penalty.

         If action should be instituted on this Note, the undersigned agrees to
pay the holder, in addition to such amounts owed pursuant to this Note, all
costs of collection, including a reasonable sum of attorney's fees.

         This Promissory Note shall be governed by the laws of the State of
Alabama.




                                               /s/ Graham G. Pattison
                                        -----------------------------------
                                                 Graham G. Pattison
Exhibit
32.2








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
§ 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Pacific Asia Petroleum, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q /A for the period ended
September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen F. Groth, Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:





1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





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








/s/
Stephen F.
Groth


Stephen
F. Groth


Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer


January 6,
2010
* 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. 04-50173 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus PRIMITIVO MARTINEZ-HUITRON, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-03-CR-264-ALL-LY

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Primitivo Martinez-Huitron appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Martinez-Huitron contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Martinez-Huitron maintains that United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D June 23, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 04-50173 -2- he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Martinez-Huitron acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### MIRA HAYS, *et al. v.*JOHN HAYS, Adm’r, *&c.*

A cause in equity being before a court upon exceptions to a report, made-under an order for an account therein :

*Held,*that it. was erroneous for the Judge, upon sustaining the exceptions, to proceed to dismiss the bill.

Bill in equity, before *Mitchell, J.,*upon exceptions to a reportmade in the course of the cause, at Fall Term 1869, of Caldwell Court.

*60An order for an account having been made, upon the report coming in the defendant filed exceptions, which on consideration, were sustained by the court, the report set aside, and the bill dismissed. Thereupon the plaintiff appealed.

*Folk*for the appellant.

*Malorie, contra.*

Reade, J.

When the defendant’s exceptions to the report were sustained, it was the privilege of the plaintiff to appeal from the ruling of his Honor, and present the whole case to this court: but the plaintiff was deprived of that privilege by the order dismissing the bill. We consider the case before us not upon the merits, but upon the appeal from the order dismissing it. That was clearly erroneous.

This will be certified, &c.

Per. Curiam. Order reversed.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20D0049. GIOVONNTE MADDOX v. THE STATE.

In 2011, Giovonnte Maddox pled guilty to one count of armed robbery, two

counts of aggravated assault, and one count of kidnapping. It does not appear that

Maddox’s conviction has been the subject of a direct appeal. In June 2019, Maddox

filed a “supplemental out-of-time appeal motion,” in which he requested leave to file

an out-of-time appeal. The trial court denied Maddox’srequest on June 19, 2019, and

Maddox filed this application for discretionary appeal on August 23, 2019. We lack

jurisdiction because the application is untimely.

An application for discretionary appeal must be filed within 30 days of the

entry of the order or judgment to be appealed. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). This filing

deadline is jurisdictional, and this Court is unable to accept an untimely application.

See Crosson v. Conway, 291 Ga. 220, 220-221 (1) (728 SE2d 617) (2012). The denial

of a motion for out-of-time appeal is directly appealable when the criminal conviction

at issue has not been the subject of direct appeal. See Simmons v. State, 276 Ga. 525,

525 n. 2 (579 SE2d 735) (2003). 

Ordinarily, when a party applies for discretionary review of a directly

appealable order, we grant the application under OCGA § 5-6-35 (j). However, to fall

within this general rule the application must be filed within 30 days of entry of the

order or judgment to be appealed. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (d), (j). Here, Maddox filed

his application 65 days after the trial court’s order was entered. 

September 13, 2019
Accordingly, the application is untimely and is hereby DISMISSED for lack

of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

09/13/2019
#### In the Matter of Supplementary Proceedings: Beverwyck Breweries, Inc., Judgment Creditor, Respondent, *v.*Henry Adelsberg, Also Known as Henry O. Adelsberg, Judgment Debtor; The National Safety Bank & Trust Company of New York, Third Party, Appellant.*

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

June 17, 1937.

*Katz & Spector [Frederick Katz*of counsel], for the appellant.

*Joseph Jay Goldsmith,*for the respondent.

*

 Revg. 160 Misc. 130.

*39Per Curiam.

We find no contempt in the action of the bank. It was entitled to the moneys which it appropriated to the payment of the note and the judgment creditor was in no way prejudiced by what it did.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

All concur. Present — Ltd on, Levy and Frankenthaler, JJ.
*April 7, 1942.*

#### Groff (Verna), Appellant, vs. Marathon County, Respondent.

For the appellant: *Boileau & Loeffler*of Wausau.

For the respondent: *E. E. Hohman,*district attorney.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4781-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas (FEMA-4781-DR), dated May 17, 2024, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This amendment was issued September 23, 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 Texas 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 May 17, 2024.

Hays County for Public Assistance (already designated for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct federal assistance under the Public Assistance program).
      ( print page 84919)    
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. 2024-24656 Filed 10-23-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
PROMISSORY NOTE
                                 ---------------


$37,500.00                               Fort Lauderdale, FL, September 28, 2001

FOR VALUE  RECEIVED,  I/WE, or either of us,  promise to pay to the order of BAY
COLONY ASSOCIATES,  LTD., the sum Thirty seven thousand, five hundred and no/100
dollars ($37,500.00) at c/o Marquette Realty, 5601 N. Dixie Highway,  Suite 420,
Fort  Lauderdale,  Florida  33334,  with interest from date at the rate of seven
(7%) percent per annum until paid, payable as follows:

Payable in one lump sum including  principal  and accrued  interest on or before
November 28, 2001.

Now should it become  necessary to collect his note through an attorney,  either
of us, whether maker, surety, or endorser on this note, hereby agrees to pay all
costs of such collection,  including reasonable  attorney's fee. The drawers and
endorsers  severally  waive  presentment  for  payment,  protest,  and notice of
protest of this note.  IN THE EVENT any payment of interest or principal  not be
paid within THIRTY (30) days after the same becomes due, the holder on this note
may, at his option,  declare the whole  principal sum here to be immediately due
and payable.

PARKSON PROPERTY LLC

By:/s/ Robert G. Tancredi
   =============================================
   Robert G. Tancredi, authorized representative
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-13-0002347

26-JUN-2017

07:57 AM
1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105

- 2498

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Post

- Proposal Meetings with Stakeholders for 2012 NCP Rulemaking

FROM: Ch uck Moulis, Senior Environmental Engineer

Assessment and Standards Division

TO: Docket Number EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 20 11

- 1000

DATE: August 21, 2012

EPA staff from the Assessment and Standards Division (ASD) met with all outside stakeholders

who requested meetings during the comment period t o d i s c u s s the 2012 Nonconformance

Penalty (NCP) propose d rulemaking . This memorandum summarizes t h e t h r e e meetings and

teleconferences w i t h A S D s t a f f

. Meetings and teleconferences involving EPA staff outside of

ASD are addressed in separate memoranda.

PACCAR Teleconference

EPA and PACCAR held a teleconference on February 12, 2012 to discuss the NCP levels

in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The attendees included:

• PACCAR

– Dan Kieffer and Edward Wheeler

• EPA

– Matt Spears, Chuck Moulis, and Angela Cullen

EPA provided clarification to PACCAR regarding the cost elements used to develop the

NCP level. PACCAR expressed their opinion that the NCP levels were too low and that

they had expected the levels to include a difference in fuel costs. OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION2

Cummins Meeting

EPA met with Cummins in Columbus, Indiana on March 8, 2012 to discuss several

issues, including the NCP rulemaking. The attendees included:

• Cummins

– John Wall, Brian Mormino, Jackie Yeager, Robert Jorgensen,

and Bridget Revier

• EPA

– Chet France, Matt Spears, Chuck Moulis, Angela Cullen , and

Houshun Zhang

At the meeting, Cummins reiterated its comments from the public hearing stating the

NCP levels were too low and presented its cost analysis

. EPA and Cummins also held a

teleconfe rence on March 2, 2012 to discuss the agenda for th is March 8 meeting

.

Volvo Meeting

EPA met with Volvo in Ann Arbor, Michigan on March 26, 2012 to discuss the NCP

rulemaking. The attendees included:

• Volvo

– Tony Greszler, Susan Alt, and Jeff Marley

• EPA

– Matt Spears, Chuck Moulis, Angela Cullen , and Houshun Zhang

At th e meeting, Volvo reiterated its comments from the public hearing and provided to

EPA confidential business information showing details of Volvo’s compliance costs and

the cost analysis supporting its recommended NCP level.
1

MEMORANDUM

From: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

To: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0603: Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions from Modified and Reconstructed Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units 

Date: August 3, 2015

Subject: Incorporation by Reference of Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 – Standards of 

Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric 

Utility Generating Units

This docket contains information that is relevant to Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0603 entitled, 

“Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Modified Sources: Electric Utility

Generating Units.” Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 is incorporated by reference into Docket 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0603.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In the Interest of A.L.P., a Child

Appellate case number: 01-19-00144-CV

Trial court case number: 18-DCV-252443

Trial court: 505th District Court of Fort Bend County

Proceeding pro se, appellant, C.J.M., has filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s 

final decree of termination. On January 31, 2019, appellant requested preparation of a 

reporter’s record of a hearing conducted on January 22, 2019 on Petitioner’s Motion to 

Waive Mediation and for Trial Setting. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(b), 35.3(b). However, 

the reporter’s record filed in this Court does not include a record of that hearing. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 35.3(b). 

Accordingly, the court reporter is ordered to prepare and file a reporter’s 

record of the January 22, 2019 hearing in this appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. No extensions of time will be granted.

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.4(b)(2), 

35.3(c). At the time the record is filed with this Court, the court reporter shall provide a 

copy of the reporter’s record of the January 22, 2019 hearing to appellant at the address 

he has provided this Court:

Curtis McGuire #00226221

Fort Bend County Jail

1410 Williams Way Blvd.

Richmond, TX 77469.

The court reporter shall certify to the Clerk of this Court, within 14 days of the date of 

this order, the date upon which delivery of the record to the appellant is made.

Appellant’s brief remains due on June 3, 2019.

 

1 Because this appeal involves the termination of the parent-child relationship, this Court is 

required to bring the appeal to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of 

appeal was filed, so far as reasonably possible. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2, reprinted in 

Tex. Gov’t. Code Ann., tit. 2, subtit. F app.
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: _May 21, 2019___
#### T. J. Lyman, Appellant, v. W. A. Walker, Appellee.

TAXATION: Sale — Redemption—Interest. In determining the amount due on redemption, it is proper to compute interest at 8 per cent.

*Appeal from Story District Court.*— H. E. Fry, Judge.

March 11, 1924.

Appeal from an order and judgment of the district court, fixing the amount appellant should pay to redeem land, after remand to the district court for that purpose. Plaintiff appeals.

*—Affirmed.*

*Charles II. Hall*and *George C. White,*for appellant.

*Fred E. Hansen,*for appellee.

Preston, J.-

The principal question is in regard to the penalty and rate of interest on payments found to be due. On the prior appeal, the reversal was had on the question as to service of notice on Sunday, and other grounds. *Lyman v. Walker,*192 Iowa 982. It was held that appellant had the right *632to redeem, and the cause was remanded with directions.to determine the amount due, with interest. It is true, as suggested by appellant, that this court did not specifically determine the rate of interest or what penalty should be added. That question was not then in the case. After the remand, the trial court found the amount which defendant had paid and which plaintiff was required to pay on redemption, which included interest on some of the items at 8 per cent, and penalties on the items where penalties had not theretofore been added. The trial court found •the total amount which plaintiff should pay to be $654.70. Appellant contends that the interest should have been computed at 6 per cent without penalties, and that the amount which the trial court should have found would be $512.61. No cases are cited by appellant. Appellee ’calls our attention to Code Section 1436, which provides for 8 per cent penalty and 8 per cent interest on redemption, where property has been sold for taxes. It was held in *Slyfield v. Barnum,*71 Iowa 245, *Elliott v. Parker,*72 Iowa 746, and *Barcroft v. Mann,*125 Iowa 530, 533, under a similar statute then in force, that interest and penalties in the amount stated should be added. The finding of the trial court was in harmony with-the statute, the cases cited, and the opinion of this court on the former appeal. The judgment *is*— Affirmed.

ARthue, C. J., Evans and Faville, JJ., concur.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 17, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134143 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134143 

 COA: 265051 

Macomb CC: 2004-002866-FC 

BRIAN LOTT,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 19, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p1010 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 17, 2007 

 Clerk
#### Welch and wife, Respondents, vs. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Transport Company, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Simmons, Walker, Wratten & Sporer*of Racine.

*645For the respondents: *Shovers ’& Shovers,*attorneys, and *Louis Hardy*of counsel, all of Racine.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.