alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00108-CV

MICHAEL REID APPELLANT

V.

UDR TEXAS PROPERTIES, LLC; 

UDR TEXAS PROPERTIES, LLC, 

SUCCESSOR TO UDR TEXAS 

PROPERTIES, LP; UDR THE 

CLIFFS, LLC; UDR, INC.; AND 

WESTERN RESIDENTIAL, INC.

APPELLEES

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 2012-007946-3

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

On November 18, 2015, we notified appellant that his brief had not been 

filed as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a). See Tex. R. 

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

App. P. 38.6(a). We stated we could dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution 

unless appellant or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed with the court 

within ten days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 42.3. We have not received any response.

Because appellant’s brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for 

want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: December 17, 2015
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: S.M.T.W., A 

MINOR

PETITION OF: Y.H., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 91 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: S.W., A MINOR

PETITION OF: Y.H., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 92 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of June, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dynacq Healthcare, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Philip S. Chan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

January 14, 2009



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Philip S. Chan     
|Philip S. Chan         
|Chief Financial Officer

This certification is made solely pursuant to the requirement of Section 1350 of 18 U.S.C., and is not for
any other purpose.
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.                  

###### National Archives and Records Administration

###### Information Security Oversight Office

# AGENCY:

Information Security Oversight Office, National Archives and Records Administration.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

      ( print page 65527)    

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app 2) and implementing regulation 41 CFR 101-6, announcement is made for the following committee meeting, to discuss National Industrial Security Program policy matters.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on November 17, 2010 from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

National Archives and Records Administration, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Archivist's Reception Room, Room 105, Washington, DC 20408.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This meeting will be open to the public. However, due to space limitations and access procedures, the name and telephone number of individuals planning to attend must be submitted to the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) no later than Friday, November 12, 2010. ISOO will provide additional instructions for gaining access to the location of the meeting.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        David O. Best, Senior Program Analyst, ISOO, National Archives Building, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20408, telephone number (202) 357-5123, or at                         *david.best@nara.gov.*                         Contact ISOO at                         *ISOO@nara.gov*                         and the NISPPAC at                         *NISPPAC@nara.gov.*

Dated: October 19, 2010.

Mary Ann Hadyka,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2010-26797 Filed 10-22-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7515-01-P
# Sitemap

## November 1978

- Home
- Sitemap
- 1978
- November 1978

            - 01
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 18, 2019

No . 04

- 19

- 00602

- CV

Christopher John LOCASCIO, Matthew Locascio, Remy John Locascio and Sara Locascio

, Appellant s

v.

Charles LOCASCIO, Appellee s

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018

- CI

- 19983

Honorable Norma Go nzales, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On October 16, 2019 , the trial court clerk notified this court that the clerk’s record was

not filed when it was originally due because appellant had failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the record and that appellant was not entitled to appeal without paying the fee. It is therefore ORDERED that appellant provide written proof to this court within ten (10) days of the date of this order that either (1 ) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be

dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(b).

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand a nd affixed the seal of the said

court on this 18th day of October, 2019

.

___________________________________ LUZ ESTRADA

, Chief Deputy Clerk
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**Certificate of Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

  

        In connection with the quarterly report ofNano-Proprietary, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas P, Baker, the Chief Financial Officerof 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 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

        2.     The informationcontained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of theCompany.

| Date:  October 30, 2003 |   /s/ Douglas P.Baker               Douglas P. Baker Chief Financial Officer |
|------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
# Sitemap

## February 25, 2013

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2013
- 02
- February 25, 2013

            - Restoration Planned for Shoreline Protecting Kennedy Infrastructure
            - Hexagon and Rings
            - Saturn’s North Polar Hexagon
            - THEMIS in the Magnetosphere
            - Administrator Bolden Sees High-Tech Manufacturing
            - Sol 197 Update On Curiosity From USGS Scientist Ken Herkenhoff: Two-Sol Planning
#### Cox and Another *v.*Wallace.

*Thursday, November*21.

Debt against *A.*and *B.*on a promissory note. Plea, that at the’ time of making the note, the plaintiff, by an article of agreement which was a part of the contract that gave rise to the note, agreed with *A.,*who was the principal debtor, that he, *A-.,*after having made every reasonable exertion to pay the note at its maturity, should not be able to do it, the plaintiff would take goods for the debt, or give the defendants further time till *A.*should be able to pay it without sacrificing property; that the defendants had been, at all times, ready to pay the amount due *on*the note in goods; and that they could not, at the time of the plea pleaded, pay the debt without a sacrifice of property.

*Held,*on general demurrer, that the plea was insufficient.

APPEAL from the *Fountain*Circuit Court.

Dewey, J.

Debt by *Wallace*against *Cox*and *Crane*upon a promissory note. The defendants pleaded, that, at the time of making the note, the plaintilfj by an article of agreement which was a part of the contract that gave rise to the note, agreed with *Cox,*who was the principal debtor, that if. he, *Cox,*after having made every reasonable exertion to pay the note at its maturity, should not be able to do it, the plaintiff would take goods for the debt, or give the defendants further time until *Cox*should be able to pay it without sacrificing property; that the defendants had been, at all times, ready to pay the amount due on the note in goods; and that they could not, at the time of the plea pleaded, pay the debt without a sacrifice of property. The plaintiff demurred generally; demurrer sustained; and judgment for the plaintiff.

This decision is evidently right. If the plea were liable *200to no other objection, it is most obviously bad, because it does not aver that Cox, having made reasonable effort to do so, was not able *to*pay the note at its maturity. That was the condition upon which the mode of payment was to be changed, or further time given. The readiness of the defendants to. discharge the note in goods, or their inability to pay the debt at the time of pleading 'without sacrificing property, was not a performance of the condition, and could not, therefore, constitute a defence to the action.

P. Sweetser, for the appellants. ■

*R. A. Chandler*and *D.*Mace, for the appellee.

Per *Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed, with 4 *per cent.*damages and costs.
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10.1
Edward H. Murphy
Chief Executive Officer
IZEA Worldwide, Inc.
480 N. Orlando Ave., Ste. 200
Winter Park, FL. 32789




April 20, 2020


Dear Ted,


This memorandum shall reflect the understanding between you (the “Executive”) and IZEA Worldwide, Inc. (the “Corporation”) to make certain temporary modifications to your Employment Agreement (dated effective April 21, 2019) and to waive enforcement of any provisions in your Employment Agreement that would contradict the terms reflected below. However, all other terms and conditions of your Employment Agreement remain unchanged. Executive consents and agrees to this Modification and represents that the reduction in salary is not a breach of the Employment Agreement. 


As part of temporary salary and wage reductions being implemented with regard to employees of the Corporation, in light of the adverse economic conditions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Executive agrees to a 21% reduction in base salary from $254,898 per year to $201,369.42 per year. This salary reduction, approved by the Corporation’s Compensation Committee on April 20, 2020, are effective as of April 6, 2020 until the earlier of December 31, 2020 or until the Corporation restores normal payroll rates to the majority of its employees. No other compensation, bonuses, or benefits (such as those in Schedules A and B) are affected by this change. Further, this change does not affect salary earned prior to April 6, 2020. 




For the Corporation:                        For the Executive:
By:    /s/ LeAnn Hitchcock                          By:    /s/ Edward H. Murphy     
LeAnn Hitchcock                        Edward H. Murphy
Chief Financial Officer                    Chief Executive Officer
IZEA Worldwide, Inc.                     IZEA Worldwide, Inc
#### KEMIN FOODS, L.C. and the Catholic University of America, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. PIGMENTOS VEGETALES DEL CENTRO S.A. DE C.V., Defendant-Appellant. Kemin Foods, L.C. and the Catholic University of America, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Pigmentos Vegetales Del Centro S.A. de C.V., Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 03-1204, 03-1245.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: Aug. 21, 2003.

ON MOTION

PROST, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the motion of Kemin Foods, L.C. and The Catholic Univer*56sity of America (Kemin) to withdraw their cross-appeal, 03-1245,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Kemiris motion is granted. Appeal 03-1245 is dismissed.

(2) The revised official caption in 03-1204 is reflected above.

(3) A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the merits panel assigned to hear 03-1204.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 6348]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2671]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee (LTFAC) will 
hold a meeting on February 23, 2010 at Sierra Nevada College, 999 Tahoe 
Boulevard, Incline Village, Nevada 89451-9500.
    This Committee, established by the Secretary of Agriculture on 
December 15, 1998 (64 FR 2876), is chartered to provide advice to the 
Secretary on implementing the terms of the Federal Interagency 
Partnership on the Lake Tahoe Region and other matters raised by the 
Secretary.

DATES: The meeting will be held February 23, 2010 beginning at 9 a.m. 
and ending at 4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Sierra Nevada College, 999 Tahoe 
Boulevard, Incline Village, Nevada 89451-9500.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arla Hams, Lake Tahoe Basin Management 
Unit (LTBMU), Forest Service, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 
96150, (530) 543-2773.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Items to be covered on the agenda include:
    <bullet> The Tahoe Working Group (TWG) will present their Lake 
Tahoe Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA) Round 11 
recommendation for capital projects and science themes. The LTFAC will 
discuss and with possible consensus, put forward a preliminary 
recommendation for public comment.
    <bullet> Discuss the status of re-chartering and member nominations 
for the next LTFAC two year term.
    <bullet> Public Comment.
    Issues may be brought to the attention of the Committee during the 
open public comment period at the meeting or by filing written 
statements for the Committee before or after the meeting. Please refer 
any written comments attention Arla Hams, Lake Tahoe Basin Management 
Unit at the contact address stated above.
    If you have questions concerning special needs for this public 
meeting, or to request sign language interpretation, contact Linda Lind 
at (530) 543-2787 or TTY (530) 543-0956, or via e-mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0448486d6a604462772a6261602a7177"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="561a1a3f383216302578303332782325">[email protected]</span></a>.
    If another LTFAC meeting is needed to put forth the Round 11 
preliminary recommendation for capital projects and science themes; due 
to time restraints the Federal Register notice will be published less 
than 15 calendar days prior to the meeting. There will be timely 
meeting notification through the LTBMU Web site (http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/ltbmu/local/ltfac).

    Dated: February 2, 2010.
Terri Marceron,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 2010-2671 Filed 2-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
---

National Aeronautics and Space 



    AdministrationNASA History Division















NASA Leadership and America's Future in Space



    A Report to the AdministratorBy Dr. Sally K. RideAugust 1987Html 

      version (fully searchable text) or pdf version (full-color graphics)

Updated March 28, 2012 

      Bill Barry, NASA Chief Historian 

      Steve Garber, NASA History Web Curator 

      Eracenia Kennedy, Diane Reid, and Mike Walker, document scanning 

      For further information E-mail histinfo@hq.nasa.gov
Exhibit
4.1





	



Certificate
of Designation of Series A Preferred Stock and Series B Preferred Stock


 


Please refer to the accompanying Exhibit 4.1. It is saved in PDF format.
#### Fleming and Another *v.*Newman.

*Saturday, November*23.

In a suit by the assignee of the payee against the maker of a promissory note, the defendant cannot give evidence of declarations made by the payee after his assignment, prejudicial to the interests of the plaintiff.

APPEAL from the *Wayne*Circuit Court.

Sullivan, J.

*Newman,*assignee of *Shambourie,*brought an action of debt, on a promissory note, against *Fleming*and Mansur. The defendants pleaded four pleas. To the second, a special demurrer was filed, which was sustained by the Court, and to the first, third, and fourth, the plaintiff replied, and issues were made to the country. The facts, by consent of parties, were tried by the Court, and judgment was given for the plaintiff

*221
      *J. B. Ray*and *M. M. Ray,*for the appellants.

*J. S. Newman,*for the appellee.

The first error assigned is, that the Court sustained the o 7 demurrer to the second plea, when it should have overruled. In this there was no error. The plea is uncertain and obscure. It is neither a plea of payment nor of accord and satisfaction, and was, we think, clearly bad on special demurrer.

On the trial, the defendants introduced an account against *Shambourie,*the payee of the note, and offered to prove by a witness, that the account had been presented to *Shambourie*by *Fleming*during the term of the Court then in session, and that *Shambourie*then admitted that all v the items of said account were just and true, and that the articles of which the account was composed were received by him in full satisfaction of the note on which the suit was brought. The plaintiff objected to the proof offered, and the Court sustained the objection. This is the second error assigned.

The Court did right in rejecting the testimony as inadmissible. *Shambourie,*if disinterested, was a competent witness and ought to have been introduced by the defendants, and sworn on the trial; if interested in the event, neither his oath nor admissions could be received. What he had said was not the best evidence, when he himself could be called. To have received his declarations would have been a violation of one of the plainest rules of evidence.

The testimony was inadmissible in another point of view. *Shambourie,*at the time the admissions were made, had assigned the note on which suit was brought to Newman, of which the defendants had notice by suit in *Neumanns*name. The admissions of the indorser of a note or bill, prejudicial to the interests of his indorsee, canbot be received, if made after he has parted with the instrument. They should be made at a time, when the admissions are adverse to his interests. *Duckham*v. *Wallis, 5*Esp. Rep. 251.—*Frear*v. *Evertson,*20 Johns. Rep.*142.*—Collenridge v. *Farquharson,*1 Stark. Cas. *259*.—Pocock v. *Billing,*2 Bing. Rep. 269.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed, with 3 *per ceñí.*damages and costs.
# Sitemap

## 2017

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2017

            - January
            - February
            - March
            - April
            - May
            - June
            - July
            - August
            - September
            - October
            - November
            - December
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Jason Daniel Mitchell, Jr., * From the 104th District Court

 of Taylor County,

 Trial Court No. 23155-B.

Vs. No. 11-22-00288-CR * December 1, 2022

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has considered Jason Daniel Mitchell, Jr.’s motion to dismiss this 

appeal and concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance 

with this court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.179



                                   DEMAND NOTE

$150,000.00                                                   New York, New York
                                                              August 7 2000

        FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Wilshire Technologies, Inc. a
California corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Borrower"), hereby
unconditionally PROMISES TO PAY to the order to TRILON DOMINION PARTNERS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company ("Lender"), at 245 Park Avenue, 28th Floor,
New York, NY 10167, or at such other place as the holder of this Demand Note may
designate from time to time in writing, in lawful money of the United States of
America and in immediately available funds, the principal amount of One Hundred
Fifty Thousand and 00/100, DOLLARS ($150,000.00), together with interest on the
unpaid principal amount of this Demand Note outstanding from time to time from
the date hereof, at a rate per annum equal to the Prime rate of interest plus
3.0%, or the highest rate permitted by law, whichever shall be less.

        The principal amount of the indebtedness evidenced hereby shall be
payable on demand. Interest thereon shall be paid when principal is paid from
the date hereof until such principal amount is paid in full at such interest
rate as specified above. Following failure to pay on demand, Borrower agrees to
pay interest on any overdue payment of principal at a rate per annum equal to
the stated interest rate plus 5%, or the highest rate permitted by law,
whichever shall be less. All interest calculations shall be computed on the
basis of a 360 day year.

        Demand, presentment, protest and notice of nonpayment and protest are
hereby waived by Borrower.

        Borrower shall have no right to make any off-set against or deduct from
any payment due under this Demand Note.

        Principal and interest may be prepaid at any time without penalty.

        This Demand Note may not be changed orally, but only by an agreement in
writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement of such change is
sought.

        All covenants of Borrower in this Demand Note and all rights of the
holder under this Demand Note shall bind Borrower and its successors and
assigns, and all such covenants and rights shall inure to the benefit of the
holder of this Demand Note and its successors and assigns.

        This Demand Note has been delivered and accepted at New York, New York
and shall be interpreted, governed by, and construed in accordance with, the
laws of the State of New York.

                                           Wilshire Technologies, Inc.



                                           By: /s/ Kathleen E. Terry
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Name:  Kathleen E. Terry
                                               Title: Chief Financial Officer