alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.78



REAL ESTATE TERM NOTE



|$1,050,000 |  |  |  | February 3, 2003
|---------- |  |  |  | ----------------



For
value received, the undersigned, RF MONOLITHICS, INC., a Delaware corporation (the Borrower), hereby promises to pay on the Termination Date under the Credit Agreement (defined below), to the order of WELLS FARGO BUSINESS CREDIT, INC., a
Minnesota corporation (the Lender), at its main office in Minneapolis, Minnesota, or at any other place designated at any time by the holder hereof, in lawful money of the United States of America and in immediately available funds, the
principal sum of One Million Fifty Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($1,050,000) together with interest on the principal amount hereunder remaining unpaid from time to time, computed on the basis of the actual number of days elapsed and a 360-day year,
from the date hereof until this Note is fully paid at the rate from time to time in effect under the Amended and Restated Credit and Security Agreement of even date herewith (as the same may hereafter be amended, supplemented or restated from time
to time, the Credit Agreement) by and between the Lender and the Borrower. The principal hereof and interest accruing thereon shall be due and payable as provided in the Credit Agreement. This Note may be prepaid only in accordance with
the Credit Agreement.



This Note is issued
pursuant, and is subject, to the Credit Agreement, which provides, among other things, for acceleration hereof. This Note is the Real Estate Term Note referred to in the Credit Agreement. This Note is secured, among other things, pursuant to the
Credit Agreement and the Security Documents as therein defined, and may now or hereafter be secured by one or more other security agreements, mortgages, deeds of trust, assignments or other instruments or agreements.



The Borrower hereby agrees to pay all costs of collection,
including attorneys fees and legal expenses in the event this Note is not paid when due, whether or not legal proceedings are commenced.



Presentment or other demand for payment, notice of acceleration, notice of intent to accelerate, notice of dishonor, protest and all other
notices of any kind are expressly waived.



RF MONOLITHICS, INC.By:

/s/ David M. KirkDavid M. Kirk President
Exhibit (10)(a)

    

    

    

    

    

    

    Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    

    

    

    

    We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in
      Post-Effective Amendment No. 34 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-149434) and Amendment No. 857 to the 1940 Act Registration
      Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08517), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 9, 2021, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 15, 2021, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account
      N for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    December 10, 2021
585 A.2d 351

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. EUNICE M. ANDERSON.

July 17, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 LIBERTY PROPERTY TRUST CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY
RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934   I, George J. Alburger, Jr., certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Liberty Property Trust;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 officers 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 ; andc)
    
    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.  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers 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 function):  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; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal controls over financial reporting; and Date: May 7, 2004
    
    By: /s/ GEORGE J. ALBURGER, JR.
George J. Alburger, Jr.
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JAMES ADDERLY.

November 17, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-30326

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Bryant Lamont Harris

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:20-CR-71-1

Before King, Jones, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Bryant Lamont Harris appeals the district court order holding that he 

remains incompetent to stand trial and continuing his commitment to the 

custody of the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 4241. Because of 

Harris’s already lengthy pretrial detention, this court expedited the appeal.

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 7, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-30326 Document: 00516271982 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/07/2022
No. 21-30326

2

This court reviews a district court’s competency determination using 

a “species of clear error” review. United States v. Simpson, 645 F.3d 300, 306 

(5th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Joseph, 333 F.3d 587, 589 (5th Cir. 

2003)). “[A]fter re-analyzing the facts and taking a hard look at the trial 

judge’s ultimate conclusion, [this court] will reverse only if the finding was 

clearly arbitrary or unwarranted.” United States v. Porter, 907 F.3d 374, 380 

(5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Simpson 645 F.3d at 306). After carefully reviewing

the record and hearing oral argument, this court findsthat the district court’s 

conclusion that Harris is still not competent to stand trial is not clearly 

arbitrary or unwarranted. Critically, reports prepared by two forensic 

psychologists and live testimony by one of those psychologists support the 

district court’s conclusion. Notwithstanding our finding, the already muchextended length of Harris’s pretrial detention is of great concern. We 

therefore strongly urge the government and defense counsel to work 

expeditiously to bring this case to a final conclusion.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-30326 Document: 00516271982 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/07/2022
## NUMBER 13 - 2 2 - 00 4 80 - CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI
– EDINBURG

IN THE INTEREST OF J.P.S., A CHILD
On appeal from County Court at Law No. 5

of Nueces County, Texas



## ORDER
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina Order Per Curiam
On October 7, 2022, appellant Cayla Payne filed a notice of appeal from a final order terminating her parental rights

. Appeals in parental termination cases are governed by the rules of appellate procedure for accelerated appeals, which include expedited deadlines and procedures. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28.4; T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN

. 6.2(a). The intermediate appellate courts are di rected to ensure “as far as reasonably possible” that appeals in such

cases are brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is2

filed. See T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN

. 6.2(a)

. Under the se exped ited deadlines , the reporter’s record i n this case should have been filed on October 17, 2022, and Payne’s brief on November 7, 2022. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.1(b), 35.1(b), 38.6(a)

. However, Payne’s appellate counsel failed to re quest the reporter’s record until November 2, 2022, causing a significant delay in this accel e r a ted proceeding. See id. R. 38 .6(b)(1) (requiring appellant t o re quest the reporter’s record when she files her notice of appeal)

. To date, the Court has not received the reporter’s record or Pay ne’s brief. To ensure the parties comply with the filing deadlines going forward , the Court orders the court reporter to file the reporter’s record by Nov ember 14, 2022. The Court further orders Payne to file her brief by December 5, 2022, and appellee t o file its brief by December 2 7 , 2022. A r equest for extension by either party will be disfavored absent extraordinary circumstances.
PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed on the 8 th day of November , 202 2

.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan

January 11, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 135120 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr.

_____________ _______________ ____________ Stephen J. Markman, Justices IN RE AKLIAH MARS HALL and MYNYA ADEA TAWANA JEANETTE MARSHALL, Minors.

_____________ _______________ ____________
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 135120 COA: 274736 Oakland CC

JADA LATRICE THOMPSON, Respondent-Appellant. Family Division: 04-697833-NA

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e September 27, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

s0108 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 11, 2008

Clerk
584 A.2d 239

#### HARRY VENABLE v. JACINTO WESLY, M.D.

June 7, 1990.

Petition for certification is granted and the matter is summarily remanded to the Appellate Division for reconsideration in light of *Olah v. Slobodian,*119 *N.J.*119, 574 A.2d 411 (1990) and *Scafidi v. Seiler,*119 *N.J.*93, 574 A.2d 398 (1990).
#### Darlene WASHINGTON-WAPEGAN, et al. v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.

No. 2010-CC-2297.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 27, 2010.

In re City of New Orleans; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. M, No. 2010-9732; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-C-1399.

Recall Stay. Writ denied.
584 A.2d 247

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JESSIE CHATMAN.

June 11, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### Coy W. PENNINGTON, Appellant, v. CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, a Corporation.

No. 16426.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

March 3, 1960.

Clayton H. Shrout, Omaha, Neb., for appellant.

Gaines, Spittler, Neely, Otis & Moore, Omaha, Neb., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Motion of appellee to dismiss appeal sustained and appeal from District Court dismissed.
EXHIBIT 10.24




PROMISORRY NOTE

ADDENDUM AND MODIFICATION AGREEMENT




THIS ADDENDUM AND MODIFICATION AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made effective this 2nd day of January 2009 (the “Effective Date”), by and among Human BioSystems, Inc. (the “Company”) and Dutchess Private Equities Fund, LP, its affiliates and designees (collectively, the “Holder”). 




RECITALS




WHEREAS the Company and Holder entered into a Promissory Note (the “Note”) dated November 6, 2006 wherein the Company agreed to repay the face amount of $1,200,000 to the Holder by August 31, 2007; 




WHEREAS in accordance with Section 4.2(a) of the Note, upon the occurrence the Event of Default, the Holder was entitled to execute Puts in an amount that will repay the Holder.




NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties identified below hereby agree as follows:




1.

The parties have mutually agreed to delete section 4.2(a) of the Note so that the Holder does not have the right to execute the Puts upon the Event of Default by the Company.




2.

All capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in the Note.




3.

Except as specifically amended hereby, the terms and conditions of the Note remain in full force and effect.




IN WITNESS THEREOF, each of the Company and the Holder has caused this Addendum and Modification to the Purchase Agreement to be executed and delivered as of this 2nd day of January 2009.




ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO BY:




COMPANY:

HOLDER:




HUMAN BIOSYSTEMS, INC.

DUTCHESS PRIVATE EQUITIES FUND, LP.







___________________________

By:_______________________________

Harry Masuda

Douglas Leighton






President

Director
---

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
        required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Navient Student Loan Trust 2014-2 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
        whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other
        information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
 
 4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in
        this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer and administrator have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement and administration agreement, as applicable,
        in all material respects; and
 
 5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
        for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act
        Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. In giving the
        certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Inc., as subservicer, Nelnet Servicing, LLC, as successor subservicer to Great Lakes
        Education Loan Services, Inc. and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as indenture trustee.
 
  
 
 Date:  March 30, 2022/s/ Joe FisherJoe FisherPresident and Chief Financial Officer (Senior Securitization Officer)Navient Funding, LLC
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7707

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GODFREY LLEWELLYN SPENCER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CR-91-138, CA-96-866-R)

Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 26, 1998

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Godfrey Llewellyn Spencer, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Breeding Peters,

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Spencer, Nos. CR-91-138; CA-96-866-R (W.D.

Va. Nov. 7, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

LIBERTY PROPERTY TRUST

CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY
RULE 13a-14(b) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Liberty Property Trust (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, GEORGE J. ALBURGER, JR., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, in
connection with Rule , that based on 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 result of operations of the
Company.

|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ GEORGE J. ALBURGER,
Jr.
|George J. Alburger, Jr.    
|Chief Financial Officer    

Date: August 11, 2003
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 27, 2014

p0519 

# Order

Clerk May 27, 2014

148286

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148286

COA: 306372

Wayne CC: 11

- 002103

- FC

CHRYSTAL LYNN

- GUARDALUPE POPE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 31, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
585 A.2d 374

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN JAIRO YEPE GOMEZ.

September 18, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                      4,999,660
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 873,976
<ALLOWANCES>                                  583,293
<INVENTORY>                                   877,074
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            6,190,749
<PP&E>                                      3,210,600
<DEPRECIATION>                                677,076
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              8,858,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       2,008,963
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                    10,000
<COMMON>                                      284,744
<OTHER-SE>                                  5,751,871
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                8,858,700
<SALES>                                       405,850
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              405,850
<CGS>                                         813,766
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 813,766
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              847,820
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             68,496
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,303,767)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,303,767)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,303,767)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)



</TABLE>
585 A.2d 374

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JAMES CLEVELAND.

September 18, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.