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

                                                                   Exhibit 10.26


                                 PROMISSORY NOTE
                               AMENDMENT NUMBER 1

         This Amendment is made as of June 28, 2002 by and between HARRIS
INTERACTIVE INC. ("Harris") and ALBERT ANGRISANI ("Angrisani"), and relates to
the Promissory Note (the "Note"), dated effective April 11, 2001, in the
original principal amount of $500,000 given by Angrisani in favor of Harris.

         Section 2 of the Note is hereby amended to read in its entirety as
follows:

                  2. Maturity Date. The unpaid principal amount, together with
         all accrued and unpaid interest, shall be due and payable on the
         earlier of (i) January 15, 2003, or (ii) the date Maker's employment
         with Payee is terminated.

         All other terms of the Note shall remain unchanged and in full force
and effect.


HARRIS INTERACTIVE INC.


By:      /s/ Gordon S. Black                      /s/ Albert A. Angrisani
                                                  -----------------------
Title:   Chairman and Chief                       Albert A. Angrisani
           Executive Officer
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Martin, Appellant.

(No. 3764

Decided March 13, 1946.)

*Mr. Alva J. Russell,*prosecuting attorney, *Mr. Robert Asar*and *Mr.'Gilbert A. Harts,*for appellee.

*Mr. J. P. Riddle,*for appellant.

Doyle, J.

The case before this court is an appeal on questions of law from the Court of Common Pleas of Summit county, and is predicated upon a judgment which convicted »the appellant herein of the crime of having - carnal knowledge of the prosecutrix, forcibly and against her will (Section 12413, General Code).

The record shows that a jury was waived by the accused and the trial had to the court.

The only error claimed is that the judgment rendered is against the weight of the evidence.

This court is a court of review, restricted in this case to a pronouncement of the law, and without power to act as a trier of the facts.

If those charged with the duty to pass judgment upon the facts might say not unreasonably that the accused (1) had carnal knowledge of the prosecutrix, and (2) committed it forcibly and against her will, beyond a reasonable doubt, the members of this court are not at liberty to substitute their judgment for that of the judge of the Court of Common Pleas empowered by law to determine the facts.

*554A different question would be here if'we could say as a matter.of law that there was no evidence to justify the conviction, or that the judgment was manifestly against the weight of the evidence. We cannot say that here.

We may presume that the trial court believed the testimony of the prosecuting witness,, shown in the following question and answer:

“Q. What is the fact: did you try to resist him from having sexual intercourse ¶ A. I tried. all I could, ’ ’ and that this evidence, coupled with a fantastical array of facts, among which was the farcical arrest of the prosecutrix by the accused, who claimed that he was a police officer acting in the line of his duty, in which he unlawfully restrained her of her liberty and subjected her to a series of frightful experiences, which finally culminated in sexual intercourse, was sufficient in its judgment to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a .reasonable doubt.

It is a well-known rule that, while consent negatives rape, where a woman is affected by terror or is in fear of great bodily injury and harm, brought into being by an accused, who has placed his victim within ■his power and control, intercourse under such circumstances without consent is rape, even though the victim might have used greater physical resistance or cried out, when it is. shown that her will was overcome by the fear or duress.

We' do not think it necessary to set out the evidence . in the record, but deem it sufficient for this court to tersely state that it is of such a character that the ' court which determined the facts had before it sufficient evidence to convict the appellant.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Washburn, P. J., and Stevens, J., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.3

                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 Annual Report of P.D.C. Innovative Industries, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Jay Ostrow, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; and

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

Date: April 28, 2004

                                                         /s/ Jay Ostrow
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Jay Ostrow
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
#### Pickens *v.*Clayton.—On appeal.

*Thursday, December*26.

THE Probate Court cannot remove a guardian, except in cases relating to the faithful performance of his trust, or to the sufficiency of the security given by him. R. S. 1838, pp. 195, *196.—Morgan*v. *Anderson et ux.*5 Blackf. 503.
Exhibit 10.5(b)


                                  AMENDMENT TO
                               HEXCEL CORPORATION
                         MANAGEMENT STOCK PURCHASE PLAN


IV.        Purpose

         This Amendment (the "Amendment") to the Hexcel  Corporation  Management
Stock Purchase Plan, as previously  adopted and effective as of January 1, 1997,
and as  amended  on March 25,  1999 (the  "Plan"),  amends the Plan on the terms
provided herein.


V.         Amendment to Capital Stock Subject to the Provisions of this Plan

(a) Unless otherwise  defined herein,  capitalized terms that are defined in the
Plan are used herein as defined therein.

(b) The first  paragraph of Section 3 of the Plan is hereby amended and restated
as follows:

         "The maximum  number of shares of the Stock which shall be reserved for
the grant of  Restricted  Stock  Units  under the Plan shall be  150,000,  which
number  shall be subject to  adjustment  as provided  in Article 7 hereof.  Such
shares may be either  authorized  but unissued  shares or shares that shall have
been or may be reacquired by the Company."


VI.        Effective Date of Amendment

         This Amendment became effective upon the approval thereof by the Hexcel
Corporation Board of Directors on December 2, 1999.



                               HEXCEL CORPORATION


                                                By:  /s/ Ira J. Krakower
                                                Name: Ira J. Krakower
                                                Title: Senior Vice President

                                      131
<PAGE>
#### J. FILIBERTO SANITATION, INC. v. BOROUGH OF MADISON.

May 16, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 8/7/2015 3:41:36 PM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000893046
<NAME>                        RENT-WAY, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    0

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         11,087
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    287,103
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 717,780
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        319,952
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       288,805
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   717,780
<SALES>                                        126,671
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               152,086
<CGS>                                          35,704
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  126,863
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               23
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             6,999
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                18,283
<INCOME-TAX>                                   6,706
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            11,577
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   11,577
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.47



</TABLE>
**Exhibit
      23**








CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








Board
      of
      Directors


Telkonet,
      Inc.


Germantown,
      MD








We
      consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
      (Registration No. 333- 114425,
      333-129950, 333-137703, 333-141069, 333-138001 )
      on Form
      S-3 of Telkonet, Inc. and its subsidiaries of our reports dated March 15,
      2007, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Telkonet, Inc.
      and its subsidiaries as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related
      consolidated statements of losses, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for
      the
      three-years ended December 31, 2006, management's assessment of the
      effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,
      2006 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as
      of
      December 31, 2006, which reports appear in the December 31, 2006 annual report
      on Form 10-K of Telkonet, Inc. and its subsidiaries.








/s/
      RUSSELL BEDFORD STEFANOU MIRCHANDANI LLP





Russell
      Bedford Stefanou Mirchandani LLP


Certified
      Public Accountants








McLean,
      Virginia


March
      16,
      2007
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Eric Sosa, Appellant

No. 06

- 13

- 00090

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the Criminal District Court 3 of Tarrant County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 1275754D ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Ju stice Carter, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We note that the appellant, Eric Sosa, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 12, 2013 BY ORDER O F THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DOUGLAS WAYNE DELLING, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-1446

(D.C. No. 1:14-CR-00053-REB-1)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

This matter is before the court on appellant’s “motion for voluntary dismissal of 

appeal and withdrawal of Anders brief.” The motion is granted. The brief filed on 

February 9, 2015 pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1968) is withdrawn, 

and the appeal is dismissed pursuant to 10th Cir. R. 46.3(B).

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lindy Lucero Schaible

 Counsel to the Clerk

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 10, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-1446 Document: 01019383693 Date Filed: 02/10/2015 Page: 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Soto, Appellant.

[787 NYS2d 901]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Reichbach, J.), rendered January 28, 2003, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of murder in the second degree *(see*Penal Law § 125.25 [2]) is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10 [1995]), and we decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice *627jurisdiction. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]; *People v Smith,*295 AD2d 629 [2002]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions either are without merit or do not require reversal. H. Miller, J.P., Crane, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.
Adam

Greenstone

Digitally signed by Adam 

Greenstone

Date: 2023.01.11 

11:21:08 -05'00'
National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

www.nasa.gov

END

START

The white circle on 

each satellite shows 

where laser signals 

are sent and received.

NASA Space Communications 

and Navigation

Laser Links GRADES K–3

INSTRUCTOR’S GUIDE

Answer Key

While laser communications can provide 

more information at once to scientists, 

clouds can disrupt laser signals as they 

enter Earth’s atmosphere. LCRD sends 

its information to two ground stations 

located on Table Mountain in California, 

and on Haleakala– Volcano on the island 

of Maui, Hawaii. These remote and 

high-altitude locations were chosen for 

their clear weather conditions. 

NOTE: Objects are not shown to scale. The LCRD 

spacecraft is about the size of a school bus.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Education

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Geraldine Smith or ReShone Moore, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., suite 7000, Washington, DC 20006-8510. Telephone: (202) 502-7600 or by e-mail:                         *TRIO@ed.gov*.                    

If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

## VIII. Other Information

*Accessible Format:*                         Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (                        *e.g.,*                         braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact persons listed under                         **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**                         in section VII of this notice.                    

*Electronic Access to This Document:*                         You can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the                         **Federal Register**                        , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site:                         *http://www.ed.gov/​news/​fedregister*. To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site.                    

# Note:

                            The official version of this document is the document published in the                             **Federal Register**                            . Free Internet access to the official edition of the                             **Federal Register**                             and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at:                             *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/​nara/​index.html*.                        

Dated: October 29, 2010.

Eduardo M. Ochoa,

Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.

[FR Doc. 2010-27732 Filed 11-2-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



Each of the
undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Petro Stopping Centers
Holdings, L.P. (the Company), that to his knowledge:



(1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) on the date hereof (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.



This written statement is being furnished to the SEC as an exhibit to the Report. A signed original of this statement has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.



|                     |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: March 29, 2005 |  | /s/ J.A. Cardwell, Sr.               
|                     |  | (J.A. Cardwell, Sr.)                 
|                     |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 
|                     | 
|Date: March 29, 2005 |  | /s/ Edward Escudero                  
|                     |  | (Edward Escudero)                    
|                     |  | Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
Opinion issued June 28, 2012.

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-12-00453-CV

———————————

TEXAS RICE LAND PARTNERS, LTD., JAMES E. HOLLAND, AND 

DAVID C. HOLLAND, Appellants

V.

DENBURY GREEN-PIPELINE TEXAS, LTD. AND MIKE LATTA, 

Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 114012

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd., James E. Holland, and David C. Holland

brought this restricted appeal from a trial court’s order confirming the award of the 

commissioners in a condemnation proceeding. To prevail on a restricted appeal, a 
2

party must show: (1) it filed notice of the restricted appeal within six months after 

the judgment was signed; (2) it was a party to the underlying lawsuit; (3) it did not 

participate in the hearing that resulted in the judgment complained of and did not 

timely file any post-decree motions or requests for findings of fact and conclusions 

of law; and (4) error is apparent on the face of the record. Ins. Co. of Pa. v. 

Lejeune, 297 S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. 2009); see TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(c), 30.

The parties have not yet briefed this case, but they have submitted an agreed 

statement of the case. See TEX. R. APP. 34.3. According to the agreed statement of 

the case and this court’s review of the record, all four requirements for relief in a 

restricted appeal have been met: appellants filed a notice of appeal within six 

months of the date the judgment was signed, appellants were parties to the lawsuit, 

appellants did not participate in a hearing or trial because none was held, and there 

is error on the face of the record because judgment was entered without any notice 

of a trial or dispositive hearing being given to any party. See Peralta v. Heights 

Med. Ctr., Inc., 485 U.S. 80, 84, 108 S. Ct. 896, 899 (1988) (stating that failure to 

give notice of proceeding that will be accorded finality is violation of due process); 

TEX. R. CIV. P. 245 (providing for mandatory forty-five day notice of a trial setting 

in contested cases); Ramsey v. Davis, 261 S.W.3d 811, 815 (Tex. App.—Dallas 

2008, pet. denied) (stating failure to give notice of trial setting violates due 
3

process). We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this 

cause for further proceedings. All pending motions are denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Higley, Sharp, and Huddle.