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

                                EXHIBIT 10.8


                               PROMISSORY NOTE


Dallas, Texas                   $29,000,000.00                    March 12, 1998


     CompUSA Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Borrower"), for value 
received, promises to pay to the order of CREDIT LYONNAIS NEW YORK BRANCH 
("Lender"), at the principal office of NationsBank of Texas, N.A., in lawful 
money of the United States of America, the principal sum of TWENTY-NINE 
MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($29,000,000.00), or such lesser sum as shall be 
due and payable from time to time hereunder, as hereinafter provided.  All 
terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the 
Credit Agreement described below.

     Principal of and interest on the unpaid principal balance of Advances 
under this Note from time to time outstanding shall be due and payable as set 
forth in the Credit Agreement.

     This Note is issued pursuant to and evidences Advances under a Second 
Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of March 12, 1998, among the 
Borrower, NationsBank of Texas, N.A., as Administrative Lender, certain 
Co-Agents and the lenders parties thereto (as amended, restated, 
supplemented, renewed, extended or otherwise modified from time to time, 
"Credit Agreement"), to which reference is made for a statement of the rights 
and obligations of the Lender and the duties and obligations of the Borrower 
in relation thereto; but neither this reference to the Credit Agreement nor 
any provision thereof shall affect or impair the absolute and unconditional 
obligation of the Borrower to pay the principal sum of and interest on this 
Note when due.

     The Borrower and all endorsers, sureties and guarantors of this Note 
(without waiving any notice that any Lender is specifically required to give 
pursuant to SECTION 8.1 of the Credit Agreement) hereby severally waive 
demand, presentment for payment, protest, notice of protest, notice of 
intention to accelerate the maturity of this Note, notice of acceleration of 
this Note, diligence in collecting, the bringing of any suit against any 
party and any notice of or defense on account of any extensions, renewals, 
partial payments or changes in any manner of or in this Note or in any of its 
terms, provisions and covenants, or any releases or substitutions of any 
security, or any delay, indulgence or other act of any trustee or any holder 
hereof, whether before or after maturity.

     THIS NOTE, TOGETHER WITH THE OTHER LOAN DOCUMENTS, REPRESENTS THE FINAL 
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND MAY NOT 

<PAGE>

BE CONTRADICTED BY EVIDENCE OF PRIOR, CONTEMPORANEOUS, OR SUBSEQUENT ORAL 
AGREEMENTS OF THE PARTIES HERETO.  THERE ARE NO UNWRITTEN ORAL AGREEMENTS 
BETWEEN THE PARTIES.

                                       CompUSA Inc.



                                       By:    /s/  Robert Gary
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Name:  Robert Gary
                                             Title:  Vice President-Finance


                                      -2-
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Space Command

USSPACECOM

                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  About    -  Mission         
  -  Warfighting Units         
  -  Frequently Asked Questions         
  -  Strategic Vision         
  -  Emblem 
-  Leaders    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Command Senior Enlisted Leader         
  -  Chief of Staff 
-  Support    -  Inspector General         
  -  FOIA      -  Making a FOIA Request         
    -  Reading Room 
  -  Equal Opportunity Coordinator         
  -  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Victim Advocate         
  -  Command Chaplain         
  -  Commandant         
  -  Resilience Program 
-  Newsroom    -  News      -  FY2025 Testimony 
  -  Photos and Videos         
  -  Speeches         
  -  Publications 
-  Contact		 
-  Partnerships and Outreach    -  Academic Engagement Enterprise      -  AEE Articles of Interest         
    -  AEE Members         
    -  AEE Multimedia         
    -  AEE Research Library 
  -  Careers      -  Civilians         
    -  Internships 
  -  Industry Engagement Portal 
-  Newcomers    -  Newcomer Information         
  -  Checking In 

# PHOTOS ANDVIDEOS

Search

Search

                                - All Images 
                                - Other 
                                - Space Shuttle 

                                - Upload Date
                                - Photo Date
                                - Title

----

Download Image: Full Size (6.31 MB)

Tags:SPACECOM, Space, SOUTHCOM, Space Force, LSGE, RS24

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
#### CARL LEE RAGLAND and wife, BEULAH P. RAGLAND, v. MARTIN KELLOGG, JR., Trustee, and JAMES E. GARRETT and wife, MYRTLE B. GARRETT.

(Filed 25 February, 1959.)

Appeal by defendants from order of *Morris, J., Resident Judge*of the First Judicial District, heard August 23, 1958, by consent, in Chambers at Currituck, North Carolina. From DaRE.

Civil action to restrain foreclosure of deed of trust constituting lien on plaintiff’s land.

On June 9, 1958, Martin Kellogg, Trustee, advertised a foreclosure sale on account of plaintiffs’ failure to pay 1957 taxes. Plaintiffs paid the 1957 taxes on June 16, 1958, and instituted this action on July 2, 1958. A temporary restraining order was issued July 3, 1958; and the question before Judge Morris was whether the temporary restraining order should be continued in effect until final hearing on the merits.

Upon .¡the amended complaint, exhibits and .affidavits, Judge Morris found as facts “that there is probable cause that the plaintiffs will Ibe able to make out their case on final hearing and . . . that serious questions of fact are raised to be passed on by a jury at the final hearing.” Thereupon, by his order of August 23, 1958, Judge Morris continued in full force and effect the said temporary order and restrained further foreclosure proceedings until the final hearing and determination of the cause.

Defendants excepted and appealed.

*McCown & McCown for plaintiffs, appellees.*

*Frank B. Ay cock, Jr., for defendants, appellants.*

Per Curiam.

The only question now presented is whether the evidence was sufficient to support Judge Morris’ findings of fact and interlocutory order. The record requires an affirmative answer.

It is noted that plaintiffs, as required by Judge Morris, filed a $1,000.00 bond, affording protection to defendants in the event it is determined on final hearing that the restraining order *pendente lite*
      *647was improvidently entered and that defendants suffered damages on account thereof.

Whether defendants’ demurrer to amended complaint was properly overruled is not presented. No petition for *certiorari*was filed. Rule 4(a), Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 242 N.C. 766. Even so, since plaintiffs’ right to the restraining order *pendente lite*is based upon the facts alleged in their amended complaint, it may be implied that this 'Court is of opinion that defendants’ said demurrer was properly overruled.

Affirmed.
#### ANNIE W. MASSEY v. MILTON P. MASSEY.

(Filed 20 November, 1935.)

Divorce E a—

Where, in a wife’s suit to set aside a deed of separation for fraud and for divorce *a mensa,,*the trial court finds that the allegations of the complaint are true and that the wife is without means to prosecute the suit and is without means of subsistence, the findings warrant the granting of alimony *pendente Ute.*

Appeal by defendant from an order of *Williams, J.,*making certain allowances to the plaintiff *pendente lite.*

The plaintiff brought her action in the Superior Court of Franklin County to set aside for fraud a separation agreement entered into between herself and her husband, the defendant, and for divorce a *mensa.*Pending the action, she moved for an allowance to herself and for counsel fees, alleging inability to support herself.

Defendant denied the fraud, set up the separation agreement and payments to the plaintiff under the terms thereof, and resisted the motion.

Numerous affidavits were filed on both sides. After considering the pleadings and the affidavits, the court below signed the order making allowances to plaintiff and her counsel, from which order defendant appealed.

*819
      *Charles P. Green and, Yarborough & Yarborough for plaintiff.*

*Albert Doub and Thomas W. Puffin for defendant.*

Per CueiaM.

Tbe court below found tbat the facts set forth in the complaint were true, that the plaintiff had not sufficient means whereon to subsist during the prosecution of the suit and to defray the necessary and proper expenses thereof, and thereupon made the order from which defendant appealed.

These findings of fact warrant the making of an allowance, and the amount does not appear unreasonable or excessive.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



The Board of Directors
Magainin Pharmaceuticals Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement Nos. 33-
52882, 33-61530, 33-71984, 33-82196, 33-96426, 333-10889 and 333-62073 on Form
S-8 and registration statement Nos. 33-69544, 33-99528, 333-09927, 333-14555,
333-38271 and 333-49681 on Form S-3 of Magainin Pharmaceuticals Inc. of our
report dated February 11, 2000, relating to the balance sheets of Magainin
Pharmaceuticals Inc. as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related
statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity and comprehensive loss
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
1999, which report appears in the December 31, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K
of Magainin Pharmaceuticals Inc.


                                         KPMG LLP


Princeton, New Jersey
March 14, 2000
#### LESTER MARTIN, Administrator of SALLIE MARTIN, Deceased, v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY et al.

(Filed 9 October, 1935.)

Appeal and Error J d—

Where the Supreme Court is evenly divided in opinion, one Justice not sitting, the judgment of the lower court will be affirmed without becoming a precedent.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Harding, J.,*at July Term, 1935, of McDowell.

Affirmed.

Tbis is an action to recover damages for the death o-f plaintiff’s intestate, who was struck and killed by an engine owned and operated by defendant Southern Railway Company, while she was walking on defendant’s track.

From judgment dismissing the action as of nonsuit at the close of all the evidence, plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning error in the judgment.

*Morgan & Storey for plaintiff.*

*B. Q. Kelly, Winborne & Proctor, and Ervin & Ervin for defendant.*

Peb Ctjbiam.

The Court being evenly divided in opinion, *Justice Brogden*not sitting, the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed, as the disposition of this appeal, without becoming a precedent, in accordance with the practice of the Court. See *Trust Co. v. Hood, 207*N. C., 862, *177*S. E., 16.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit12.1**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Arvid Tage, certifythat:

1.               I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 20-F of Britannia Bulk Plc.;

2.               Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.               The company’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:

a.               Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b.              Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c.               Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.               The company’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and thecompany’s board of directors:

a.               All significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record,process, summarize, and report financial information; and

b.              Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the company’sinternal control over financial reporting.

Date:  April 23, 2007
|        | /s/ Arvid Tage           |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Arvid Tage               |
|   | Chief Executive  Officer |

 

----
**Exhibit
        32**


**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**





In
      connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Summit Environmental
      Corporation, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September
      30, 2006 (the “Report”), I, Doug Cox, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
      hereby certify that to my knowledge:





(1) The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78o(d)); 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:
      December 21, 2006




*/s/
              Doug Cox*Doug CoxChief Executive
              Officer





The
      above
      certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB
      or as a separate disclosure document.
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  Washington  Banking  Company (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Michal
D. Cann, 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:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

This  certification is being furnished solely to comply with the requirements of
18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, and shall not be  incorporated by reference into any of
the  Company's  filings  under  the  Securities  Act of 1933  or the  Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934,  or otherwise be deemed to be filed as part of the Report
or under such Acts.


/s/ Michal D. Cann
------------------
Michal D. Cann
Chief Executive Officer


May 12, 2003
#### STATE v. RASTER BRADY.

(Filed 11 April, 1945.)

Appeal by defendant from *Bobbitt, J.,*at December Term, 1944, of RANDOLPH.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Rhodes and Moody for the State.*

*J. G. Prevette for defendant, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The defendant was tried at December Term, 1944, Randolph Superior Court, upon an indictment charging him with carnal knowledge and abuse of his daughter, “a female child over twelve years and under sixteen years of age.” G. S., 14-26.

Upon his conviction, he was sentenced for a term of ten years in the State’s Prison. From this he appealed. His only exception is to the overruling of his demurrer to the evidence. The evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction, and the appeal is without merit.

In the proceedings of the lower court we find

No error.
Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

-3.61 -4.35 -0.10 -0.43 -3% -10%

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2023 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary

Social Security Administration

August 1, 2023

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Retirement Age

Current law

[percent of payroll]

Change from current law

[percent of payroll] Shortfall eliminated

Proposed Provision: C2.1. Increase the earliest eligibility age (EEA) by 2 months per year for those age 62 

starting in 2025 and ending in 2042 (EEA reaches 65 for those age 62 in 2042).

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Income rates under current law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under current law

Cost rates with this provision

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Current law With this provision
<PAGE>

Exhibit 21

List of Subsidiaries


1. Dendrite Delaware, Inc., a Delaware corporation

2. Dendrite Corporate Services, Inc., a New Jersey corporation

3. Dendrite UK Ltd., organized under the laws of the United Kingdom

4. Dendrite Japan K.K., organized under the laws of Japan

5. Dendrite Pty. Ltd., organized under the laws of Australia

6. Dendrite (New Zealand) Ltd., organized under the laws of New Zealand

7. Dendrite Netherlands, B.V., organized under the laws of the Netherlands

8. Dendrite France, S.A., organized under the laws of France

9. Dendrite Italia, S.r.l., organized under the laws of Italy

10. Dendrite (Deutschland) GmbH, organized under the laws of Germany

11. Dendrite Brasil Ltda., organized under the laws of Brazil

12. Dendrite  Financial Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation

13. Dendrite Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation

14. Dendrite  Portugal, organized under the laws of Portugal

                                       20
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 12, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 63613]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30178]



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

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION

12 CFR Part 701


Technical Amendments; Organization and Operation of Federal 
Credit Unions; Correction

AGENCY: National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).

ACTION: Correction to final regulation.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects an inadvertent error in an amendatory 
instruction to the final regulations which were published Tuesday, 
November 28, 1995 (60 FR 58502). The regulations consolidated all 
current regulations and requirements that apply to federally insured 
state-chartered credit unions in one place, the regulations on 
requirements for insurance. The error occurred in one of the conforming 
technical amendments.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 29, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hattie M. Ulan, Special Counsel to the 
General Counsel, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, or telephone 
(703) 518-6544.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register published on 
November 28, 1995, there was an inadvertent error in an amendatory 
instruction to the final regulation. The final regulations concern 
requirements for insurance. However, the error was contained in the 
instruction for a technical amendment to Sec. 701.21--Loans to members 
and lines of credit to members. This correction is being made in order 
to ensure that the final regulation is published correctly in the Code 
of Federal Regulations.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the publication on November 28, 1995 of the final 
regulations which were the subject of FR Doc. 95-28703, is corrected as 
follows:


Sec. 701.21  [Corrected]

    On page 58504, column one, the second line of amendatory 
instruction 3., the word ``fourth'' is corrected to read ``fifth''.
Becky Baker,
Secretary, NCUA Board.
[FR Doc. 95-30178 Filed 12-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-M
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 1118

_____________________________
E RNEST M IESSEL G RUBB , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County

. David Rimmer , Judge

. March 5, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W ETHERELL and M AKAR , JJ., and B RASINGTON , M ONICA J., A SSOCIATE J UDGE , concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and M.J. Lord, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Ap pellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, and Daniel Krumbholz, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.