alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
10.3


REVOLVING
NOTE


	
  

 	
  

 
	
 $3,000,000

 	
 July 24, 2014

 



          FOR
VALUE RECEIVED, each of MGC DIAGNOSTICS CORPORATION, a Minnesota
corporation, and MEDICAL GRAPHICS CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation
(individually and collectively, the “Borrower”), jointly and severally,
promises to pay to the order of BMO HARRIS BANK N.A., a national banking
association (the “Bank”), at its main office in Minneapolis, Minnesota
or at such other place as may be designated in writing from time to time by the
Bank, in lawful money of the United States of America, the principal sum of
Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000) or so much thereof as has been advanced by
the Bank to or for the benefit of the Borrower pursuant to that certain Credit
Agreement, dated as of the date hereof, as amended from time to time, among the
Borrower and the Bank (the “Credit Agreement”) and remains unpaid,
together with interest (as provided in the Credit Agreement) on the unpaid
principal balance hereof from the date hereof until this Note is fully paid.


          This
Note is payable as provided in the Credit Agreement. The Borrower may prepay at
any time and from time to time, all or any portion of the balance from time to
time remaining on this Note as provided in the Credit Agreement. 


          This
Note is the “Revolving Note” referred to in the Credit Agreement, is issued
pursuant to and is subject to the Credit Agreement which, among other things,
provides for acceleration of the maturity hereof upon the occurrence of an
Event of Default, as defined in the Credit Agreement, and is secured by the
Security Agreements and other Loan Documents referred to in the Credit
Agreement.


          The
Borrower, jointly and severally, agrees to pay all costs of collection,
including reasonable attorneys’ fees, in the event this Note is not paid when
due. This Note is being delivered in, and shall be governed by, the laws of the
State of Minnesota. Presentment or other demand for payment, notice of dishonor
and protest are expressly waived.


	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 MGC DIAGNOSTICS CORPORATION

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 By

 	
 /s/ Wesley
 W. Winnekins 



 
	
  

 	
 Its

 	
 Chief
 Financial Officer, Chief

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
 Operating
 Officer and Secretary

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 MEDICAL GRAPHICS CORPORATION

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 By

 	
 /s/ Wesley
 W. Winnekins



 
	
  

 	
 Its

 	
 Chief
 Financial Officer, Chief

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
 Operating
 Officer and Secretary

 


53
1 

Order entered October 21, 2016. 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-01188-CV 

IN RE DERRICK LYNN JOHNSON, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 204th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F-1655027 

ORDER 

Before Justices Francis, Fillmore, and Stoddart 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. 

/s/ MOLLY FRANCIS 

 JUSTICE
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 of September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
|(1)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
|(2)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
|Dated:  November 9, 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
|
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 4877)    
                    Notice is hereby given of change in the meeting of the NIH Advisory Board for Clinical Research, January 31, 2005, 2 p.m. to January 31, 2005, 5 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Building 10,  10 Center Drive, Medical Board Room 2C116, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on January 12, 2005, 70 FR 2177.                

The open session will start from 10 a.m.-2 p.m. The closed session will be held from 2 p.m. until adjournment. The meeting will be held in Room 4-2551, CRC Medical Board Room. The meeting is partially Closed to the public.

Dated: January 27, 2005.

Anna Snouffer,

Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 05-1884 Filed 1-27-05; 4:53 pm]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6825

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARK ALLEN JACKSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (1:99-cr-00421-1)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 23, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Allen Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen P. Learned,

Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Mark Allen Jackson appeals from the district court’s

order granting in part and denying in part his motion for reduction

of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2000). We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United

States v. Jackson, No. 1:99-cr-00421-1 (E.D. Va. Apr. 18, 2008).

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
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1496

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Marco Antonio Ceja

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

 Submitted: November 10, 2015 

Filed: November 17, 2015

[Unpublished] 

____________

Before SMITH, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Marco Ceja directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1

 after he

pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine and conspiring to commit

1

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.
money laundering. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was

unreasonable. We conclude that Ceja’s appeal waiver should be enforced and that the

waiver prevents consideration of his claim. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702,

704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver);

United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (court should

enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where it falls within scope of waiver, plea

agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no

miscarriage of justice would result). Having independently reviewed the record

pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for

appeal. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-24-00037-CV 

 

LOIS STEVEN, APPELLANT 

V. 

OBREGON REMODELING (MAX), APPELLEE 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 

Tarrant County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2022-005665-3, Honorable Mike Hrabal, Presiding 

May 20, 2024 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. 

Appellant, Lois Steven, proceeding pro se, appeals from the trial court’s Final 

Judgment.1 Steven’s brief was due March 25, 2024, but was not filed.2 By letter of April 

1 Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by 

the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. 

2 On April 15, 2024, Steven attempted to file a document via eFile requesting a five-week extension 

to file a brief. This document was rejected by the Clerk of the Court, however, because it was not served 

on the parties and did not include a certificate of conference as required by the appellate rules. See TEX. 

R. APP. P. 9.5, 10.1(a)(5). Steven was instructed to file a corrected motion for extension in compliance with 

the appellate rules by April 18, 2024. Steven did not file a corrected motion and has not filed any additional 

requests for extension.
2

24, 2024, we notified Steven that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of 

prosecution, without further notice, if a brief was not received by May 6. To date, Steven 

has neither filed a brief nor had any further communication with this Court.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b).

Per Curiam
<PAGE>
 
                                  EXHIBIT 11
                 FPA MEDICAL MANAGEMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE AND COMMON STOCK EQUIVALENTS
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                 YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                            ---------------------------------
                               1993       1994       1995
                            ---------- ---------- -----------
<S>                         <C>        <C>        <C>
Primary:
Pro forma net income
 applicable to primary
 earnings per common
 share....................  $  843,795 $  278,078 $ 1,002,462
                            ========== ========== ===========
Common stock and common
 stock equivalents:
Weighted average shares of
 common stock outstanding
 during the year
 (including retroactive
 effect of 1995 one-for-
 one stock dividend)........ 3,163,000. 3,947,178   7,274,046
Common stock equivalents
 (stock options and
 warrants)................                 34,435     402,356
                            ---------- ---------- -----------
Total common stock and
 common stock
 equivalents..............   3,163,000  3,981,613   7,676,402
                            ========== ========== ===========
Primary pro forma net
 income per common share..  $     0.27 $     0.07 $      0.13
                            ========== ========== ===========
Fully Diluted:
Pro forma net income
 applicable to primary
 earnings per common
 share....................  $  843,795 $  278,078 $ 1,002,462
Add back interest expense
 on convertible
 debentures, net of tax
 effect...................                  9,000      32,400
                            ---------- ---------- -----------
Adjusted pro forma net
 income applicable to
 fully diluted earnings
 per common share.........  $  843,795 $  287,078 $ 1,034,862
                            ========== ========== ===========
Common stock and common
 stock equivalents:
Shares used in calculating
 primary earnings per
 common share.............   3,163,000  3,981,613   7,676,402
Shares on conversion of
 debentures...............                200,000     200,000
Other.....................                 31,554       2,666
                            ---------- ---------- -----------
Total common stock and
 common stock equivalents
 on a fully diluted
 basis....................   3,163,000  4,213,167   7,879,068
                            ========== ========== ===========
Fully diluted pro forma
 net income per common
 share....................  $     0.27 $     0.07 $      0.13
                            ========== ========== ===========
</TABLE>
 
  Note: Fully diluted pro forma net income per common share is not presented
in FPA's Consolidated Statements of Operations as the difference from primary
pro forma net income per common share is less than 3%.
State v. Calvin Renard Carter

193PA16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 3, 2017

Richard J. Costanza, Attorney at Law, Southern Pines, for Carter, Calvin Renard.

Kristin Jo Uicker, Assistant Attorney General, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 3rd of February 2017 by State of NC:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of February 2017."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 22nd day of February 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
# C_2012355EN.01001503.xml

| 17.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Dura Vermeer Infra v Commission

(Case T-352/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Rights of the defence)

2012/C 355/28

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Dura Vermeer Infra BV (Hoofddorp, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Slotboom, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by A. Bouquet and A. Nijenhuis, Agents, and by F. Wijckmans, F. Tuytschaever and L. Gyselen, lawyers, and subsequently by A. Bouquet, A. Nijenhuis and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents, and by F. Wijckmans and F. Tuytschaever)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Dura Vermeer Infra BV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Dura Vermeer Infra BV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.

1

---
Exhibit 31.2



Certifications



I, Edward Escudero, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Petro Stopping Centers, L.P.;



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 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 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 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 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: March 25,
2004

|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|/s/    Edward Escudero               
|                                     
|(Edward Escudero)                    
|Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
SCAD-21-0000398
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

Petitioner,

vs. NOAH D. FIDDLER (HI Bar #3144),

Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ( ODC Case No. 21-0131)
ORDER GRANTING PETITION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the July 1, 2021 petition for the immediate restraint of the license to practice law in this jurisdiction held by Respondent Noah D. Fiddler, filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) pursuant to Rule 2.13 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai ʻ i (RSCH), this court notes the exhibits attached to the petition include the granting on June 9, 2021 by the First Circuit Court, in State of Hawai ʻ i v. Fiddler , No. 1CPC-18-0000632, of Fiddler’s motion for the deferred acceptance of a guilty plea to five felony counts of willful failure to collect and pay over a tax, in violation of HRS § 231-36.4 (2010), and twelve misdemeanor counts of willful Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-21-0000398 16-JUL-2021 01:48 PM Dkt. 5 OGPfailure to file a return, in violation of HRS § 231-35 (2010),

all of which we conclude were crimes which involved dishonesty. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that ODC’s petition is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Fiddler is immediately restrained from the practice of law in this jurisdiction, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.13(b), pending final disposition of a disciplinary proceeding based on the findings of guilt. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is hereby referred to the Disciplinary Board of the Hawai ʻ i Supreme Court for institution of formal disciplinary proceedings, to be convened once these convictions become final, as defined in RSCH Rule 2.13(d). The sole issue to be determined at those hearings shall be the discipline to be imposed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i, July 16, 2021. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Todd W. Eddins

2
STATE of North Carolina v. Brian Joshua BAKER

No. COA 16-708

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: February 21, 2017

NO ERROR.