alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex1047.htm


Exhibit 10.47


 


 


 








 


 


 


March 22, 2013


 


VIA EMAIL


 








Apex Systems Integrators Inc.


3170 Harvester Drive 


Burlington, Ontario




L7N 3T8


 







Dear Sirs:


 


Re: Apex Systems Integrators Inc. Subordinate Financing investment 064984-01


 







Our review reveals that the following conditions are in default as per Letter of Offer dated February 14, 2012 (the “Agreement”).


 


"you will use the funds as planned in the financial program and maintain, for the duration of this investment, a term debt to tangible net worth ratio of the borrower not exceeding 0.9:1; and a minimum working capital amount representing 10% of the borrower(s) Annual Gross Sales of the previous year, revised annually after each year end. For the purposes of these calculations, BDC Capital and the investment from DecisionPoint Systems Inc. will be considered Equity."


 


We acknowledge and waive the default stated above for the period ending December 31, 2012 and further waive compliance with this specific covenant for until March 31, 2013.


 


We reserve rights under the Agreement and reserve the right to demand payment of borrowings outstanding under the credit facility in the event of other breaches of the Agreement.








Sincerely,




 




	 	 	 	 	 
	
/s/ Carolyn Galbraith

	 	 	
/s/ Jeff Hill

	 
	
 
Carolyn Galbraith



	 	 	
Jeff Hill

	 
	
Manager, Subordinate Financing 

	 	 	
Managing Director, Subordinate Financing 

	 
	 
(905) 315-9456

	 	 	 
(519) 675-3114

	 









 


 












 


 


 


 


 


 


 




 







 



	 
 
Business  Development   Bank  of  Canada


'I115 North Service Read, Suite "10 I


Burhngton, Ontano L7L 6Al



	 Banque  de developpement  du  Canada 
1115 North Service Read. bureau 401


Burlington (Ontario) L7L 6A3

	T 905 31S-9590 
F 905 315•9243


wwwbdc.ca

	 Canada
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 7, 2016

NO. 03-15-00800-CV

Ardetra Lewis, Appellant

v.

Housing Authority of Austin, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on November 10, 2015. 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.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATE OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERAND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICEROFVYYO INC.**

                Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Vyyo Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ending September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Davidi Gilo, asChief Executive Officer of the Company, and Arik Levi, as Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, tothe best of his knowledge, that:

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

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.
| /s/ Davidi Gilo         |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Davidi Gilo             |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| November 14, 2006       |
|                    |
| /s/ Arik Levi           |   |
| Arik Levi               |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| November 14, 2006       |

 

----
# C_2016281EN.01000101.xml

| 3.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8116 — Macquarie/SLFL GIO II/SGI Italia)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 281/01)

On 26 July 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8116. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8116. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David L. Osborn, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Hudson's Grill International, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to
state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this  report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this
report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

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

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the
periods presented in this report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

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

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

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

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

|Date: May 11, 2006 | /s/David L. Osborn

[Signature]

President
|------------------ | ------------------------------------------

f\sec\o01.060331
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 5, 2016

No. 04-16-00502-CR

Antonio R. FLORES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR0432

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellant’s motion for extension of time to file their brief is granted. The appellant’s

brief is due on January 9, 2017. 

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 5th day of December, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 63 (Thursday, April 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 17745]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07563]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Radio Broadcasting Services; AM or FM Proposals To Change the 
Community of License

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The following applicants filed AM or FM proposals to change 
the community of license: Always Mountain Time, LLC, Station KIDN-FM, 
Facility ID 57339, BPH-20140311ACI, From Burns, CO, To Hayden, CO; 
McNeese State University, Station KBYS, Facility ID 17277, BPED-
20150226ABQ, From Moss Bluff, LA, To Lake Charles, LA; Radio Hatteras, 
Inc., Station WHDX, Facility ID 16416, BPED-20150223ABD, From Buxton, 
NC, To Waves, NC; Riverfront Broadcasting, LLC, Station KZKK, Facility 
ID 15267, BPH-20150213ADF, From Huron, SD, To Parkston, SD; Saver 
Media, Inc., Station KQTC, Facility Id 19041, BPH-20150204AAG, From 
Eldorado, TX, To Christoval, TX.

DATES: The agency must receive comments on or before June 1, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tung Bui, 202-418-2700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The full text of these applications is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 
20554 or electronically via the Media Bureau's Consolidated Data Base 
System, http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/cdbs_pa.htm. A 
copy of this application may also be purchased from the Commission's 
duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street 
SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or 
www.BCPIWEB.com.

Federal Communications Commission.
James D. Bradshaw,
Deputy Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2015-07563 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
```
#### Nolty vs. The State.

A warrant by a justice of the peace, under sec. 134, chap. 120, R. S., in an action to recover the possession of personal property, described the property to be seized as “ one piece of square timber about thirty long and twelve inches square, of pine, of the value of” &c. *Held,*that the defect in the description of the *length*of the timber (being a clerical mistake) might have been corrected by amendment, and did not render the process utterly void.

Although the officer might perhaps have refused to execute the writ, yet, after he had in fact seized the right property under it, a party indicted and convicted for resisting such seizure could not reverse the conviction on the ground of such defect in the writ.

EBROB to tbe Municipal Court of tbe City and County of *Milwaukee.*

*F. Fox Oooh,*for plaintiff in error.

*The Attorney General,*for tbe state.

*By the Gourt,*

DixoN, C. J.

The plaintiff in error having been indicted and convicted for resisting an officer in tbe execution of civil process, sues out this writ of error and claims to reverse tbe conviction on the ground that tbe alleged process was void. No bill of exceptions having been settled, tbe case comes up upon tbe record as it stands without such bill, and the question is presented upon tbe sufficiency of tbe process as it is described in tbe indictment. Tbe process was a warrant for tbe recovery of tbe possession of personal property, issued by a justice of tbe peace of tbe county of Milwaukee in conformity to the requirements of section 134 of chapter 120 of tbe Revised Statutes; except that it is urged that tbe property to be seized was so defectively described as not to authorize tbe seizure, and that the warrant was for that reason a nullity. The property was described as *“*one piece of square timber, about thirty long and twelve inches square, tbe wood being of pine, of tbe value of six dollars ” &c. The objection is, that tbe length of the piece of timber was not given ; that tbe officer was not informed whether it was thirty feet or thirty inches. It is obvious from tbe nature of tbe property described, as well as from the context, that tbe word *669*“*feet ” was omitted by clerical mistake. If so, tbe defect might have been cured by amendment. But if it was not that but some other word which the magistrate intended to insert, the same power of amendment existed. In either case there was no such total defect in description as rendered the process utterly void. The officer might possibly have refused to exe- • cute it (18 Wend., 496); but having executed it by the seizure of the right property, there would have been no want of jurisdiction, and the action could not on that account have been dismissed.

Conviction affirmed.
**Exhibit 12.1**
**Section 302 Certification**
I, **Brian J. Goggin**, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of the company; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the company and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
 

 

 (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting.      Date:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MARCUS LEONARD WALLACE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 674 MAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7th day of March, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 63 (Thursday, April 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17816-17817]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07583]


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

 SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #14252 and #14253]


New Hampshire Disaster #NH-00029

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of NEW HAMPSHIRE 
(FEMA-4209-DR), dated 03/25/2015.
    Incident: Severe Winter Storm and Snowstorm.
    Incident Period: 01/26/2015 through 01/28/2015.
    Effective Date: 03/25/2015.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/26/2015.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 12/28/2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 03/25/2015, Private Non-
Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental 
nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above 
or other locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:
Primary Counties: Hillsborough; Rockingham; Strafford.

    The Interest Rates are:

[[Page 17817]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere....     2.625
  Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere.     2.625
For Economic Injury:
  Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere.     2.625
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14252B 
and for economic injury is 14253B.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2015-07583 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE CODE 8025-01-P
Exhibit 13.2  Section 906 Certification  Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland, a chartered corporation incorporated under the laws of Ireland (Bank of Ireland), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:  The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the twelve months ended December 31, 2011 (the Report) of The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Bank of Ireland.   Date: 29 March 2012Name: Andrew KeatingTitle: Group Chief Financial Officer
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00404-CV

IN RE GUIDEONE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Original Proceeding

ORDER

GuideOne Insurance Company’s petition for writ of mandamus was filed on

November 28, 2016. The Court requests a response from the other parties to the 

proceeding. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(b). Any response shall be filed with the Clerk of this 

Court no later than 28 days from the date of this order.

PER CURIAM

 

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Response requested

Order issued and filed December 7, 2016
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 07, 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, June 07, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16D0389. IN THE INTEREST OF: E. B., A CHILD (FATHER) .
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 029141115
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Danny Barforough v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC and U.S. Bank

National Association

Appellate case number: 01

- 16

- 00266

- CV

Trial court case number: 2015

- 08217

Trial court: 133rd District Court of Harris County

On August 16, 2016, we abated this case for the trial court to render a final judgment by

ruling on appellees’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 27.2 (permitting

abatement for trial cou rt to render final judgment). On November 28, 2016, the district clerk filed

a supplemental clerk’s record containing an order by the trial court granting appellee’s request for

attorney’s fees and costs. Accordingly, we REINSTATE this case on the Court’s active docket.

The parties have already filed briefs and the appellate record has been filed in this Court.

The case will be set for submission at the earliest practicable time.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebecca Huddle

Acting individually

Date: January 1 2 , 2017
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-16-00611-CV

Sandra Campos VIDALES,

Appellant

v.

Raymond CAMPOS,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CV04500

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 7, 2016

DISMISSED

After the appellant’s brief was filed, we notified appellant the brief did not satisfy the 

requirements contained in the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. We ordered appellant by 

November 23, 2016, to file an amended brief that complied with all applicable rules of appellate 

procedure. We further notified appellant that if a timely amended brief that corrected the 

deficiencies was not filed, we may strike the brief, prohibit appellant from filing another, and 

proceed as if appellant had failed to file a brief, which may include dismissal for want of 
04-16-00611-CV

- 2 -

prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 38.9(a); Elizondo v. City of San Antonio, 975 S.W.2d 

61, 63 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.).

On November 21, 2016, appellant filed a two-page letter describing the proceedings in the 

trial court and other matters. The letter does not comply with all applicable rules of appellate 

procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4, 38.1. Because appellant has failed to comply with this court’s 

order to file a compliant appellant’s brief, we order this appeal dismissed for want of prosecution 

and that appellee recover appellee’s costs in this appeal from appellant. See TEX.R. APP. P. 38.8(a); 

see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (court may dismiss appeal because appellant has failed to comply 

with a court order within the time provided).

PER CURIAM