alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.11


                                PROMISSORY NOTE
                             RENEWAL AND EXTENSION
                               September 24, 2001


For value received, the undersigned, RMH Teleservices, Inc. ("Borrower"), hereby
promises to pay to the order of Special Investment Risks, Ltd. ("Lender"), in
lawful money of the United States of America, the principal sum of Five Million
Dollars ($5,000,000.00), together with simple interest on the principal amount
hereunder remaining unpaid from time to time, computed on the basis of actual
number of days elapsed in a 360-day year, from the date hereof until this Note
is fully paid at the annual rate equal to eight and one half percent (8.5%).

The outstanding unpaid principal balance of this Note, plus all accrued and
unpaid interest, shall become due and payable on October 24, 2001.

Borrower agrees to pay all costs of collection, including attorneys' fees, in
the event any principal and/or interest on this Note is not paid when due.
Except as otherwise required by the terms of this Note, Borrower hereby waives
presentment, demand, protest, dishonor and notice of dishonor.  This Note shall
be governed by the internal laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, Borrower has executed and delivered this Note as of the date
first above written.  This note is a renewal and extension of the promissory
note, dated July 19, 2001.


                                             RMH Teleservices, Inc

                                             By: /s/ John A. Fellows
                                                -----------------------------
                                             Name: John A. Fellows
                                                  ---------------------------
                                             Title: Chief Executive Officer
                                                   --------------------------
Exhibit 10.1


 


POSTAL REALTY TRUST, INC.


2019 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN


 


Amendment No. 2


 


THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 (this
“Amendment No. 2”) to the Postal Realty Trust, Inc. 2019 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”)
is made by Postal Realty Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”), effective as of the Effective Date
(as defined below). Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed to them in the
Plan.


 


WHEREAS, the Company
previously adopted the Plan for the benefit of its eligible Participants;


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to
Article XVI, the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) may amend the Plan, provided that approval by
the Company’s stockholders is required for any amendment to the Plan to the extent that such approval is required by law or the rules
of any exchange on which the shares of Common Stock are listed, including an amendment that materially increases the aggregate number
of shares of Common Stock that may be issued under the Plan;


 


WHEREAS, the Board
believes it is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders to amend the Plan as set forth herein; and


 


WHEREAS, this Amendment
No. 2 shall become effective upon the approval of this Amendment by the Company’s stockholders at the annual meeting of stockholders held
on June 18, 2021 (the date of such approval, the “Effective Date”).


 


NOW, THEREFORE, BE
IT RESOLVED, the Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective as of the Effective Date:


 


		1.	Aggregate Limit.



 


		a.	The first sentence of Section 5.02(a) of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and shall be replaced
with the following:



 


The maximum aggregate
number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued under this Plan pursuant to the exercise of Options and SARs, the grant of Stock Awards
or Other Equity-Based Awards and the settlement of Performance Units and Incentive Awards is ten percent (10%) of the total number of
fully diluted shares of Common Stock (including securities convertible into Common Stock, such as, but not limited to, units of the Operating
Partnership, LTIP Units, and restricted stock units) outstanding on the last day of the immediately preceding fiscal year.


 


		b.	Section 5.02(c) of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and shall be replaced with the following:



 


The maximum number of shares of Common
Stock that may be issued as incentive stock options is equal to the number of shares subject to the Plan as of the Effective Date of Amendment
No. 2 and shall be subject to adjustment as provided in Article XII.


 


		2.	Incorporation. This Amendment No. 2 shall be and is hereby incorporated
in and forms a part of the Plan.



 


		3.	Force and Effect. Except as otherwise set forth in this Amendment
No. 2, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
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 quarterly report of eLinear, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB  for  the  quarter ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jon V. Ludwig, Chief
Executive  Officer  of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
as  adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
the  best  of  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/ Jon V. Ludwig
--------------------------------------
Jon V. Ludwig, Chief Executive Officer
May 20, 2003


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


<PAGE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6840

LARRY WOOLFORK, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

CHESAPEAKE MAIL CLERK, Mail Clerk; JOHN NEWHART, Sheriff, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, 

District Judge. (1:09-cv-00198-AJT-TCB) 

Submitted: September 10, 2009 Decided: September 15, 2009 

Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Larry Woolfork, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Larry Woolfork appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action as frivolous. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Woolfork v. Chesapeake Mail Clerk, No. 1:09-cv-00198-

AJT-TCB (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 15, 2009, entered Apr. 16, 2009). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT
32.1







Certification
of Chief Executive Officer and  Chief Financial Officer


pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


regarding Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009





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 a Texas corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify
that:





1.  The
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ended June 30,
2009, (the Form 10Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2.  Information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date
      November 16, 2009
            By:
            /s/ Steven L.
      SampleSteven
      L. SampleChief
      Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
EXHIBIT
31.1
 
 **CERTIFICATIONS**
  I,
Douglas Abel, certify that:
  1. I have
reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Manhattan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(the “Registrant”);
  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. The
Registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are 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, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and
  (c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
  5. The
Registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant’s board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
  (a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably 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 or other employees who
have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.
  ****Date: May 16, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Douglas AbelDouglas AbelPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of

Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, David M. Demshur, Chief Executive Officer of Core Laboratories N.V. (the "Company"), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2008, filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the "Report").

I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Date: October 24, 2008 | /s/ David M. Demshur          
|---------------------- | ------------------------------
|                       | Name: David M. Demshur        
|                       | Title: Chief Executive Officer
|                       |
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2131 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2131

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 16, 2015

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 83 Meeting Street in Charleston, South Carolina, as the ``J. Waties 
                       Waring Judicial Center''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. J. WATIES WARING FEDERAL BUILDING AND UNITED STATES 
              COURTHOUSE.

    (a) Designation.--The Federal building and United States courthouse 
located at 83 Meeting Street in Charleston, South Carolina, shall be 
known and designated as the ``J. Waties Waring Judicial Center''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal building and 
United States courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed 
to be a reference to the ``J. Waties Waring Judicial Center''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 15, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### HYLAND v. BURNS et al.

(Supreme Court. Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 20, 1896.)

Negligence—Children—Question for Jury.

Negligence is a question for the jury where a child seven years old is injured by the toppling over of stones piled in the street by defendant.

Appeal from city court of Brooklyn, trial term.

Action by Thomas Hyland against John Burns and James V. Johnson, composing the firm of Burns & Johnson, to recover damages for the loss of service of plaintiff’s child by reason of injury to the child’s hand. The complaint was dismissed on the merits, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Argued before BROWS', P. J., and CULLEN, BARTLETT, HATCH, and BRADLEY, JJ.

John J. Leary, for appellant.

Paul E. De Here, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The .jury would have been authorized to find, apon the evidence, that the piling of the stone in the street line constituted an unlawful obstruction in the street, and was, therefore, a nuisance. Cohen v. Mayor, 113 N. Y. 534, 21 N. E. 700; Wells v. City of Brooklyn, 9 App. Div. 61,41N. Y. Supp. 143. If the child was sui juris, which may not be affirmed as matter of law, the question of her negligence was for the jury, upon the evidence. If she was not sui juris, the question arises upon the negligence of the parents. The child was seven years and four months old. The mother testified that she cautioned the child, when upon the street, to stay in front of the house. At the time the mother was engaged about her household duties. The child had been absent for about half an hour, and *874the mother understood she was at play upon the street. Under these circumstances the question whether proper care required of the mother more attention than she g?ve the child was for the jury to answer. The father of the child worked in the stoneyard opposite which the stone was piled, and evidence was given by defendants which tended to establish that he was instrumental in creating the obstruction which occasioned the injury. If this fact were conceded, we should have an entirely different question from, that which disposes of this appeal. But this fact was not conceded. On the contrary, he testified that he had not worked at this place during the spring and winter prior to the injury. And the proof of defendants fails of showing that the father piled the stones that inflicted the injury. We are of opinion that the case presented a question of fact for the jury, and that the court erred in disposing of it as a question of law.

The judgment should therefore be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.
(78 Hun, 428.)

#### MEISE v. NEWMAN et al.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

May 18, 1894.)

Negotiable Instruments—Notice of Nonpayment.

Authority of a notary public to send a notice of nonpayment of a note is shown by evidence that the husband of the holder of the note brought it to the office of her attorney, where the notary had his place of business, and told the notary of the presentment and nonpayment, and that after-wards plaintiff’s attorney came in, and he and the notary talked the matter over, and it was decided to send the notice, it appearing that the notary did not certify to a protest of the note, but simply gave notice to the indorser that the note had been presented and payment had been refused.

*202On reargument. For former report, see 27 N. Y. Supp. 708.

Argued before VAN" BEUNT, P. J., and FOLLETT and PABKEE, JJ.

J. C. Rosenbaum, for appellant.

J. G. Flammer, for respondent!

VAN BRUNT, P. J.

Upon a previous argument of this case the court reserved for consideration the question as to whether there had been any sufficient proof of presentment and notice of nonpayment to entitle the plaintiff to recover. Upon the record as it then stood, the court was of opinion that there was not sufficient evidence of presentment and nonpayment to charge the indorser. The case has now been resettled, and the confusion which previously existed in reference to the testimony has been eliminated. A reargument has been had, and it would seem that the objections suggested upon the previous argument have now been met. It appears that the note in question was presented upon its due day by the plaintiff and her husband to the defendant, and payment demanded, which was not made, and that the notice of such demand and nonpayment was duly mailed to, and received by, the indorser.

It is urged upon the part of the appellant that there is no authority shown upon the part of the notary to sign the notice of nonpayment, and that, he not having made the demand, and not having personal knowledge of the making of the demand, such notice was of no avail, and the indorser was not charged. It appears that the notary had his place of business in the office of the plaintiff’s attorney, and that the husband of the plaintiff came in with the note, and told the notary of the presentment, and that subsequently the attorney came in, and he and the notary talked the matter over, and it was then decided to send the notice of nonpayment. This, it seems to us, was sufficient, and the authority to act complete. It is to be observed that the notary did not pretend to act in his official capacity, and did not certify to the protest of the note, but simply gave notice to the indorser that the note had been presented for payment, and that payment had been refused. We think, therefore, that the judgment should be affirmed, with costs. AE concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.02

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   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 Transmeta Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending September 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q
being and as amended by this Form 10-Q/A referred to as the "Report"), I,
Mark R. Kent, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my
knowledge, 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, amended; and

      (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
            of the Company for the periods presented therein.

Date: November 10, 2004                  By: /s/ MARK R. KENT
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Chief Financial Officer,
                                            Transmeta Corporation

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Transmeta Corporation and will be retained by Transmeta
Corporation and furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
# C_2021015EN.01000101.xml

| 14.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8964 — Delta/Air France-KLM/Virgin Group/Virgin Atlantic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 15/01)

On 12 Fabruary 2019, 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 English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | 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 32019M8964. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M8964. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

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

---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ,

Appellant,

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 14

- 00124

- CR

Appeal from the

County Criminal Court No. 4

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20120C12851)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Appellant’s motion to dismiss appeal, and

concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed, in accordance with

the opinion of this Court. We therefore dismiss the appeal. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Ju stice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.