alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.17


 


ALLONGE


MODIFYING NOTE


 


WHEREAS, undersigned Borrower did make and execute
a certain Promissory Note dated May 29, 2007 in favor of  Signature Bank of Georgia. , pursuant to an Authorization
for a loan to undersigned Borrower issued by  Signature Bank of Georgia. and the SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION under Docket
No.  GP 277-203-6006 GA, said Note being in the principal amount of  $1,500,000.00 , which said Note contained various
recitations concerning the payment of periodic installments of principal and interest;


 


WHEREAS, the undersigned have agreed to the
following changes in the provisions of the said Note:


 


a) The maturity date has been extended to August
29, 2018. The next payment due will be September 29, 2012 in the amount of $10,000.00.


 


WHEREAS, the parties mutually acknowledge and
agree that the present unpaid and outstanding principal balance on said Note is $ 644,193.14 as of August 27, 2012.


 


WHEREAS, undersigned Borrower and  Signature
Bank of Georgia. desire that the terms of said Note be modified to affect such change,


 


NOW THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and
between the undersigned parties hereto said Note be, and the same hereby is deemed modified in accordance with the provisions herein
contained.


 


IT IS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED by and between
the undersigned parties hereto that all other terms and provisions of said Note shall remain in full force and effect.


 


EXECUTED this 30 of August,
20 12 .


 





 





	 	 	Borrower(s):	 	 
	SIGNATURE BANK OF GEORGIA



	SAFETY QUICK LIGHT LLC	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Freddie J. Deutsch	By:	/s/ Rani R. Kohen	 	 
	 	Freddie J. Deutsch	 	Rani R. Kohen	 	 
	Its:	President/CEO	Its:	President & CEO
STATE of North Carolina, v. Terry Donnell HARRISON, Defendant, and Ontarris T. Armstrong, Bail Agent, and Financial Casualty & Surety, Surety.

No. COA17-16

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 3, 2017

VACATED. REMANDED.
Francisco FAGUNDES and Desiree Fagundes v. AMMONS DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. ; East Coast Drilling & Blasting, Inc.; Scott Carle; and Juan Albino

No. 70P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

Jay P. Tobin, Attorney at Law, Angela Farag Craddock, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for East Coast Drilling & Blasting, Inc., et al.

William W. Plyler, Attorney at Law, Leonard T. Jernigan, Jr., Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Anthony L. Lucas, Attorney at Law, for Fagundes, Francisco.

John M. Nunnally, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Amie C. Sivion, Attorney at Law, for Ammons Development Group, Inc.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th of March 2017 by Plaintiff (Francisco Fagundes) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of August 2017."
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.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - [Report No. 2687] 

Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification have been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). The full text of this document is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1-800-378-3160). Oppositions to these petitions must be filed by February 17, 2005. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions have expired.

Subject: In the Matter of Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band (WT Docket No. 02-55).

Consolidating the 800 and 900 MHz Industrial/Land Transportation and Business Pool Channels to Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, including Third Generation Wireless Services (ET Docket No. 00-258).

Petition for Rulemaking of the Wireless Information Networks Forum Concerning the Unlicensed Personal Communications Service (RM-9498).

Petition for Rulemaking of UT Starcom, Inc. Concerning the Unlicensed Personal Communications Service (RM-10024).

Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum at 2 GHz for Use by the Mobile Satellite Service (ET Docket No. 95-18).

*Number of Petitions Filed:*                     15.                

Marlene H. Dortch,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 05-1942  Filed 2-1-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
**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 of Makeup.com Limited (the “Registrant”) on
        Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert E. Rook,
        President, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and a member of the Board
        of
        Directors, certify, pursuant to s.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
        that:
  (1)
          The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB 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 represents, in all
        material respects the financial condition and result of operations of the
        Registrant.
  /s/ Robert
                E.
                RookRobert E. Rook
                Chief
                    Executive Officer
                  Makeup.com
                    Limited
  May 11 ,
          2007
Report of Independent Public Accountants

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
of TeleBanc Financial Corporation and Subsidiaries

We have  audited  the  accompanying  consolidated  balance  sheets  of  TeleBanc
Financial  Corporation (a Delaware  Corporation) and subsidiaries as of December
31,  1997  and  1996,  and  the  related  consolidated   statements  of  income,
stockholders'  equity,  and cash flows for the years then ended. These financial
statements   are  the   responsibility   of  the   Company's   management.   Our
responsibility  is to express an opinion on these financial  statements based on
our audits.

We  conducted  our  audits  in  accordance  with  generally   accepted  auditing
standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit also includes
assessing the  accounting  principles  used and  significant  estimates  made by
management,  as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion,  the financial  statements  referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects,  the financial position of TeleBanc Financial Corporation
and  subsidiaries  as of  December  31,  1997 and 1996,  and the  results of its
operations  and its cash  flows  for the years  then  ended in  conformity  with
generally accepted accounting principles.



                                                         /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

Vienna, VA
February 20, 1998
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Project Software & Development, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-79074, 33-79142,
33-95774, 33-95780, 333-3402) of our report dated November 8, 1996, on our
audits of the consolidated financial statements and financial statements
schedule of Project Software & Development, Inc. as of September 30, 1996 and
1995, and for the years ended September 30, 1996 and 1995, which report is
included in this annual report on form 10-K.

                                      Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.

Boston, Massachusetts 
December 19, 1995
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION**     I, Mark E. Pape, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Affirmative InsuranceHoldings, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,18 U.S.C. Section 1350, to the best of my knowledge, that:(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterended June 30, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and (2) the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.This certificate is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 906.Dated: August 9, 2007                    /s/ Mark E. Pape   Mark E. Pape   Executive Vice President and Chief
NEXT ADVISOR CONTINUED, INC. v. LENDINGTREE, INC. and Lendingtree, LLC

No. 391A16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 14, 2016

*701Russell F. Sizemore, Attorney at Law, Jonathan M. Watkins, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Mary Cabell Clay, Attorney at Law, Glenn E. Ketner, III, Attorney at Law, Scott M. Tyler, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Lendingtree, Inc., et al.

Christopher G. Smith, Attorney at Law, Susan H. Hargrove, Attorney at Law, Isaac A. Linnartz, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Next Advisor Continued, Inc.

**ORDER**

Appeal dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in Conference, this the 8th day of December 2016.
STATE of North Carolina v. Anthony Lamont BOULWARE

No. 321P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 1, 2017

Ms. Kimberly P. Hoppin, Attorney at Law, Mr. Anthony Lamont Boulware, for Boulware, Anthony Lamont

Mr. Daniel Snipes Johnson, Special Deputy Attorney General, Mr. R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th of September 2017 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of November 2017."
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

BEST FRENCH FRIES, INC. d/b/a DOUGH DOUGH’S DONUTS

, Appellant,

v.

BEALECON CONSTRUCTION, LLC
, Appellee.

No. 4D2023

- 1765

[ July 25, 2024 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Carolyn Bell , Judge; L.T. Case No. 502020CA011188

.

Michael D. Brown of Brown & Associates, North Palm Beach, for appellant

.

Jerrod M. Maddox and Paula A. Martinez of Dunn Law, P.A., Miami, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

G ROSS

, F ORST and A RTAU

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<PAGE>   1

        (a) Exhibit 11 - COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON AND
                         COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  Year Ended
                                                               December 31, 1996
                                                               -----------------
<S>                                                            <C>
Primary
Net income                                                         $3,093,747
                                                                   ==========
Weighted average shares outstanding
  Average Common share                                              5,353,403
  Average unallocated ESOP shares                                    (305,303)
  Common stock equivalents - options and warrants                     120,596
                                                                   ----------
Total weighted average shares outstanding during period             5,168,696
                                                                   ==========



Earnings per common and common share equivalent - primary                $.60
                                                                   ==========

Fully Diluted
Net income                                                         $3,093,747
                                                                   ==========
Weighted average shares outstanding
  Average common shares                                             5,353,403
  Average unallocated ESOP                                           (305,303)
  Common stock equivalents - options and warrants                     134,036
                                                                   ----------
Total weighted average shares outstanding during period             5,182,136
                                                                   ==========
Earnings per common and common share equivalent - fully diluted          $.60
                                                                   ==========
</TABLE>


                                       22
# C_2008116EN.01000401.xml

| 9.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 116/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Infront WM AG, formerly KirchMedia WM AG, French Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-125/06 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Directive 89/552/EEC - Television broadcasting - Action for annulment - Fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC - Meaning of decision of ‘direct and individual’ concern to a natural or legal person)

(2008/C 116/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Banks and M. Huttunen, agents)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Infront WM AG, formerly KirchMedia WM AG (represented by M. Garcia, Solicitor), French Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 15 December 2005 in Case T-33/01 Infront WM AG v Commission of the European Communities, in which the Court annulled the Commission's decision, adopted under Article 3a of Council Directive 89/552/EC of 3 October 1989, declaring compatible with the common market certain measures taken by the United Kingdom regarding restrictions on the television broadcasting of a series of sports and other events of national interest — Concept of being directly and individually concerned for the purposes of Article 230 EC

Infront WM AG

Commission of the European Communities

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.

1

---
Exhibit 32(b)

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 accompanying Quarterly Report of Windstream Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brent K. Whittington, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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/ Brent K. Whittington                            
|Brent K. Whittington                                
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|August 8, 2007                                      

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Windstream
Corporation and will be retained by Windstream Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 10.15**

 

DESCRIPTIONS OF BASIC BONUS PLAN, INCENTIVE BONUS PLAN

AND CONTRACTUAL BONUS PLAN

(Compensatory Plans Applicable to Named Executive Officers)

 

*BASIC BONUS PLAN*

Certainof the Company’s officers and key managers are included in a basic bonus plan.Maximum potential awards under the basic bonus plan are determined as apercentage of the participants’ base salaries. The basic bonus plan establishes(a) two goals for Company earnings per share after payment of bonuses (the “Company’sEPS”), which are uniform for all basic bonus plan participants (the “EPS Goals”);and (b) goals for departmental/individual performance, which vary with each basicbonus plan participant (the “Performance Goals”). No bonus is payable to any basicbonus plan participant unless the Company’s EPS are at least equal to the firstEPS Goal (regardless of whether such participant satisfies his/her PerformanceGoals). The maximum potential award is to be paid to any basic bonus planparticipant if the Company’s EPS are at least equal to the second (higher)  EPS Goal and such participant satisfies allof his/her Performance Goals.

 

*INCENTIVE BONUS PLAN*

Inorder to encourage and reward exceptional performance of the Company, the Companyalso has an incentive bonus plan for certain of the Company’s seniormanagement. If an eligible participant receives a bonus under the incentive bonusplan, no bonus is payable to such participant under the basic bonus plan.Maximum potential awards under the incentive bonus plan are based on a higherpercentage of the participants’ base salaries than would otherwise be awardedunder the basic bonus plan. The incentive bonus plan establishes a third goalfor Company earnings per share (the “Incentive EPS Goal”), which is higher thanthe second EPS Goal under the basic bonus plan. No bonus is payable under the incentivebonus plan unless the Company’s EPS were at least equal to the Incentive EPSGoal (regardless of whether any participant satisfied his/her PerformanceGoals). The maximum potential award is to be paid to any incentive bonus planparticipant if the Company’s EPS were at least equal to the Incentive EPS Goaland such participant satisfied all of his/her Performance Goals.

 

*CONTRACTUAL BONUS PLAN*

Theemployment agreement between the Company and Chief Executive Officer Robert N.Wildrick entitles Mr. Wildrick to a bonus of up to 250% of his base salary uponachievement by the Company of certain specified earnings per share goalsestablished for each year of his employment agreement.

 

----
STONE v. INGRAM.

S17A0772.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: September 13, 2017

Christine Stone, 2604 Canopy Lane, Marietta, Georgia 30066, for Appellant.

Julia Anderson, 175 15th Street, N.E., Apt. 317, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, Dennis R. Dunn, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Russell David Willard, Annette M. Cowart, Senior Assistant Attorney Generals, Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Josiah Benjamin Heidt, Assistant Attorney General, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, 40 Capitol Square, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30334, for Appellee.

*5PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed without opinion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 59.

*Judgment affirmed without opinion.*

All the Justices concur.
#### Joseph Piteo, Doing Business as Piteo’s Silver Arrow City Lines, Plaintiff, *v.*Barnwell Bros., Inc., Defendant.

City Court of New York, Special Term, New York County,

September 20, 1943.

*Rein, Mound & Cotton*for defendant.

*Martin Werner*for plaintiff.

McCullen, J.

The defendant has moved for an order consolidating a Municipal Court action with the present City Court action pursuant to section 18-a of the New York City Court Act (L. 1926, ch. 539). The Municipal Court action is a nonjury cause while the action in this court is a jury cause. This court cannot force the plaintiff to try his cause before a jury when he has • waived one. A consolidation would, in effect, force the plaintiff to do that which this court is powerless to order him to do. It is clear that the motion for a consolidation of the two causes must be denied for the above reason, since it would seriously prejudice the rights of the plaintiff. Motion denied.
BLANTON SUPPLIES OF LITTLE RIVER, INC., a South Carolina Corporation, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM BARBER, INC. CUSTOM HOME BUILDER, a North Carolina Corporation; and Terrence G. Vickers and wife, Nancy Vickers ; and William G. Barber, Individually, Defendants.

No. COA16-916

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 16, 2017

VACATED AND REMANDED.