alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.97



                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

$643,197.16                                                        March 7, 1997

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED,  the  undersigned,  promises to pay, ON DEMAND,  to the
order of Cogentrix Energy,  Inc. (the "Lender"),  at 9405 Arrowpoint  Boulevard,
Charlotte, North Carolinia 28273 the sum of SIX HUNDRED FORTY THREE THOUSAND ONE
HUNDRED NINETY SEVEN and 16/100 Dollars ($643,197.16) with interest as set forth
below.

     All unpaid  principal due hereunder  shall bear interest from March 7, 1997
(the date of  advance)  at the rate of six  percent  (6%) per annum.  All unpaid
principal and interest hereunder shall be due and payable ON DEMAND.

     The  undersigned and all other parties who at any time may be liable hereon
in any capacity,  jointly and severally waive  presentment,  demand for payment,
protest and notice of protest and notice of dishonor of this note, and authorize
the holder hereof, without notice, to grant extensions in time of payment of any
monies owing under this note.

     The undersigned shall pay attorney's fees as well as all costs and expenses
actually  incurred  by the Holder  hereof in  enforcing  its  rights  under this
Promissory Note.

     This note may not be changed  orally,  but only by an  agreement in writing
signed by the party against whom any waiver,  change,  modification or discharge
is sought.

     This note shall be deemed to be a contract made under the laws of the State
of New Jersey and shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of
said State.

     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  this note has been executed,  sealed and delivered on
_____ __, 1998 effective as of the day and year first above written.

Witness:                                   Agro Power Development, Inc.


_____________________________              By:_________________________________
                                              Name:
                                              Title:
Marquis Dyshawn PLAYER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-3436

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Julia A. Fratianne, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this amended annual report on Form 10-K/A of Applied InnovationInc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.Date: April 30, 2007       /s/ Julia A. Fratianne         Julia A. Fratianne    Vice President, Chief Financial Officer andTreasurer  
30
Case: 1:18-cv-00412-MWM-KLL Doc #: 11 Filed: 11/14/18 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 261
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 11.1 
                                      
                            DAW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

                        EARNINGS PER SHARE CALCULATION

                       Three Months ended September 30,

<TABLE>
                                                     1996                               1995             
                                         -------------------------------    ---------------------------- 
                                          PRIMARY          FULLY DILUTED      PRIMARY      FULLY DILUTED 
                                         ----------        -------------     ----------    ------------- 
<S>                                      <C>               <C>                <C>          <C>           
Average number of common shares
 outstanding during the period
  
  Common shares outstanding
   during the entire period              12,342,254          12,342,254      12,208,390      12,208,390 
  
  Weighted average common shares
   issued during the period                   8,296               8,296          91,440          91,440 
                                         ----------          ----------      ----------      ---------- 
  Weighted average number of
   common shares outstanding             12,350,550          12,350,550      12,299,830      12,299,830 
  
  Dilutive effect of common stock
   equivalents under stock warrants
   and options*                                   -                   -               -               - 
                                         ----------          ----------      ----------      ---------- 
  Weighted average common and
   dilutive common equivalent
   shares outstanding                    12,350,550          12,350,550      12,299,830      12,299,830 
                                         ----------          ----------      ----------      ---------- 
                                         ----------          ----------      ----------      ---------- 
  Net earnings applicable to
   common stock                          $1,015,000          $1,015,000      $  242,000      $  242,000 
                                         ----------          ----------      ----------      ---------- 
                                         ----------          ----------      ----------      ---------- 
  Net earnings per common and
   dilutive common equivalent
   shares outstanding                    $     0.08          $     0.08      $     0.02      $     0.02 
                                         ----------          ----------      ----------      ---------- 
                                         ----------          ----------      ----------      ---------- 
</TABLE>

*Not included in this earnings per share calculation, since the total 
dilutive effect of all common stock equivalents calculated under the Treasury 
Stock Method is less than 3% for the three months ended September 30, 1996 
and 1995.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Da-Lite Screen Company, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending October 1, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard E. Lundin, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 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.



/s/    RICHARD E. LUNDINRichard E. LundinChief Executive OfficerNovember 9, 2004
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
CALCULATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE DATA <F1> ($ in thousands, except per share
data)
Fiscal year ended December 31,       1996       1995      1994 <S>
<C>           <C>         <C>
Net Income (loss)                (1,118)       (1,598)     (3,889) Preferred
Stock dividends        (1,552)       (1,234)     (  469)
     Total                       (2,740)       (2,832)     (4,358)
Average shares outstanding       1,961,761     2,007,230   2,012,514 Earning per
share (primary)       (1.40)        (1.41)      (2.17) <FN>
<F1> The per share data and the outstanding shares of Common Stock have been
     adjusted to reflect the one-for-five reverse stock split, which was
     effective July 25, 1994.
</FN>
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                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 on Form 10-K of Ascential Software
Corporation (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Peter Gyenes, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, to the best of my knowledge and
belief 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.

                               Dated: March ___, 2003


                               /s/ Peter Gyenes
                               --------------------------------------
                               Peter Gyenes
                               Chief Executive Officer


        A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Ascential Software Corporation and will be retained by
Ascential Software Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

<PAGE>
        In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Ascential Software
Corporation (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Robert C. McBride, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, to the best of my knowledge and
belief 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.

                               Dated: March ___, 2003


                               /s/ Robert C. McBride
                               --------------------------------------
                               Robert C. McBride
                               Chief Financial Officer


        A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Ascential Software Corporation and will be retained by
Ascential Software Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-4501

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MUSTAFA A. CUNNINGHAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-96-733) Submitted: May 11, 1999 Decided: May 21, 1999 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Parks N. Small, Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Hayden Bickerton, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Mustafa Cunningham pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute and to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West Supp. 1998). The district court imposed a thirty-month sentence. Cunningham’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel states that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raises the following issue: whether the district court erred in refusing to enforce a state court order that Cunningham serve any concurrent federal sentence in a federal correctional institution. Although informed of his right to file a supplemental brief, Cunningham has failed to so file. Because our review of the record reveals no reversible error, we affirm. We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders , and find no meritorious issues for appeal. This Court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petitionbe filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in3 the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

[KPMG LOGO]

     Two Nationwide Plaza                                 Telephone 614 249 2300
     Columbus, Ohio 43215                                 Fax 614 249 2348



                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors
Applied Innovation Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-62646, 33-94582, 333-4432 and 333-67259) on Form S-8 of Applied Innovation
Inc. of our report dated February 12, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance
sheets of Applied Innovation Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 1998 and
1997, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders'
equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 1998, which report appears in the December 31, 1998, annual report
on Form 10-K of Applied Innovation Inc.



/s/ KPMG LLP

Columbus, Ohio
March 26, 1999
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2





               Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 33-16220, Form S-8 No. 33-16084, Form S-8 No. 33-60926, and Form
S-8 No. 333-10813) pertaining to the Incentive Stock Option Plan, the
Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan, the 1993 Employee Stock Option Plan and the
1995 Stock Option Plan of P.A.M. Transportation Services, Inc. of our report
dated February 14, 1996, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and schedule of P.A.M. Transportation Services, Inc. included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.

                                                            ERNST & YOUNG LLP




Little Rock, Arkansas
March 24, 1997
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Lincare Holdings Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Paul G. Gabos, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



By:

/s/ PAUL G. GABOSPaul G. Gabos Chief Financial Officer


November 9, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 792 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 792

To authorize representation by the Senate Legal Counsel in the case of 
                Chad Michael Frein v. Dianne Feinstein.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 3, 2020

  Mr. McConnell (for himself and Mr. Schumer) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To authorize representation by the Senate Legal Counsel in the case of 
                Chad Michael Frein v. Dianne Feinstein.

Whereas, Senator Dianne Feinstein has been named as a defendant in the case of 
        Chad Michael Frein v. Dianne Feinstein, Civil Action No. 20-CV-0252-LJV, 
        currently pending in the United States District Court for the Western 
        District of New York;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  288b(a) and 288c(a)(1), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to defend Members of the Senate in civil actions 
        relating to their official responsibilities: Now therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent 
Senator Feinstein in the case of Chad Michael Frein v. Dianne 
Feinstein.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 10.3


                         UNITED RETAIL GROUP, INC.
                          365 West Passaic Street
                    Rochelle Park, New Jersey 07662-6563

                                                     October 15, 2000


LIMITED DIRECT ASSOCIATES, L.P.
c/o The Limited, Inc.
Three Limited Parkway
Columbus, Ohio 43230
Attention:  Kenneth B. Gilman
               Vice Chairman

Dear Sir or Madam,

         We refer to the Right of First Refusal dated September 17, 1999
between you and us. This letter is to confirm that the expiration date of
such Right of First Refusal is hereby extended to October 15, 2001. In
consideration of such extension we enclose a check for $1,000.

         Please sign and return the enclosed copy of this letter to
evidence your agreement with the foregoing and receipt of the
above-mentioned check. Thank you very much.

                                 Very truly yours,

                                 UNITED RETAIL GROUP, INC.


                                 By:    George Remeta
                                    -----------------------------------------
                                 Name:  George Remeta
                                 Title: Vice Chairman



cc:  Ken Carroll
     Patrick Hectorne

Agreement and receipt of check acknowledged:

LIMITED DIRECT ASSOCIATES, L.P.

By: LIMITED DIRECT, INC.

By:    Patrick Hectorne
   -----------------------------------------
Name:  Patrick Hectorne
Title: Treasurer
Opinion issued June 20, 2024

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 2 3
- 00 781
- CV

——————————— IN RE S.A.R.S. TRUCKING LTD. AND FELIPE RODRIGUEZ , Relator s

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator s , S.A.R.S. Trucking Ltd. and Felipe Rodriguez , filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s August 15, 2023 order denying their

“ Motion for Entry of New Docket Control Order, or in the Alternative, Motion for Leave to Late Designate Experts

. ” 1 Relators request ed that this Court “grant them

1 The underlying case is Janelle Solis, Individually, and on Behalf of Her Minor Children, I.C., A.S., S.G., and S.G. v. S.A.R.S. Trucking Ltd. and Felipe Rodriguez , Case No. 202 0

- 23445 , in the 164 th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable C. Elliot Thornton presiding.2

mandamus relief [and] set[] aside [the trial court’s] denial of their Motion for Leave to Late Designate ” an expert witness, and to “requir[e] that such leave be granted .” In connection with their petition for writ of mandamus, relators filed a “Motion for Temporary Relief: Stay of Trial Proceedings,” requesting that the Court stay trial in the underlying lawsuit pending this Court’s resolution of the mandamus petition. On March 13, 2024, t he Court granted the temporary relief requested by relators, staying the underlying lawsuit

. Our review of the mandamus petition reflects that relators have failed to establish that they are entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and lift the stay imposed by our March 13, 2024 order

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52.8(a). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot

. PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Hightower, Rivas

- Molloy, and Farris.