alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                EXHIBIT 10.37

                      NON-INTEREST BEARING PROMISSORY NOTE




$25,000                                          Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Dated:  November 19, 2001                        Maturity Date:  March 19, 2002

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, FULLNET COMMUNICATIONS, INC., an Oklahoma corporation,
with an address of 201 Robert S. Kerr Avenue, Suite 210, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
73102 (the "Maker"), does promise to pay to the order of NORTHEAST RURAL
SERVICES, a subsidiary of Northeast Oklahoma Electric Cooperative, Inc., a
cooperative corporation organized under the laws of Oklahoma, (the "Holder") at
such place as may be designated by the Holder of this promissory note (the
"Note"), on the above specified maturity date, the principal sum of TWENTY-FIVE
THOUSAND AND NO/100'S DOLLARS ($25,000), without interest. The principal shall
be due and payable on the Maturity Date which shall be March 19, 2002

     Whenever any payment shall be due under this Note on a day that is not a
"Business Day" (as such term is hereafter defined), the date on which such
payment is due shall be extended to the next succeeding Business Day with the
same force and effect as if made on the date of payment. "Business Day" means a
day other than a Saturday, Sunday or other day on which national banks in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma are authorized to be closed.

     Capitalized terms used herein which are not otherwise defined shall have
the meaning as described in that certain Asset Purchase Agreement between the
parties dated of even date herewith (the "Asset Purchase Agreement").

     EVENT OF DEFAULT. Except as set forth in the preceding section, the failure
to pay principal when due shall be an event of default.

     RIGHT OF PREPAYMENT. At any time from the date hereof to the due date, the
Maker may prepay the entire principal sum or any portion thereof, without
penalty or restriction.

     AMENDMENT AND WAIVER. This Note may not be changed, modified or amended, or
terminated, nor may any of its provision be waived, except by an agreement in
writing signed by the party against whom enforcement thereof is sought.

     CHOICE OF LAW. This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of Oklahoma.

     PROMISES BINDING. This Note shall be binding upon the Maker and its
successors and assigns.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Maker has caused this instrument to be duly signed
as of the date first set forth above.

                                  FULLNET COMMUNICATIONS, INC.


                                  By: /s/ TIMOTHY J. KILKENNY
                                      --------------------------------------
                                      Timothy J. Kilkenny, President and CEO


                                   Page 1 of 1
DISMISS and Opinion Filed November 20, 2019 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-19-01335-CR REGINALD ARLEIGH NOBLE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Crimin al District Court No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. W00-50025-K 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Whitehill, and Nowell Opinion by Justice Nowell On October 30, 2019, Reginald Arleigh Noble file d his notice of appeal. According to the notice, Mr. Noble filed an applic ation for an article 11.07 writ of habeas corpus in the Criminal District Court No. 4 on August 8, 2019. That court forwarded th e writ to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on September 13, 2019. Twelve days later, the court of cr iminal appeals notified Mr. Noble by postcard the following: The Court has previously entered an order citing you for abuse of the writ of habeas corpus. The application for writ of habeas corpus filed by you in the CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT #4, received by this Court on 9/13/2019, does not satisfy the requirements for consideration set out in the order described above. Therefore, the Court will take no action on this writ. Although Mr. Noble seeks to appeal the “a buse of writ from the Court of Criminal Appeals,” he cites no authority fo r the proposition we may review actions taken by the Texas Court–2– of Criminal Appeals. “[O]ur jurisdiction over an appeal must be based on either (1) the general constitutional grant, subject to any restrictions and regulations im posed by the legislature; or (2) a specific statutory gran t of jurisdiction.” See Harris v. State , 402 S.W.3d 758, 760 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.). We have no ju risdiction to review actions taken by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Barlow , 48 S.W.3d 174, 175–76 (Tex. 2001); Tune v. Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety , 23 S.W.3d 358, 361 (Tex. 2000); see also T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC

. A NN
. art. 4.04 (“The Court of Criminal Appeal s shall have, and is hereby given, final appellate and review jurisdiction in criminal cases coextensive with the limits of the state, and its determinations shall be final.”). Therefore, we dismiss this appeal.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b) 191335F.U05 / Erin A. Nowell/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
REGINALD ARLEIGH NOBLE, Appellant
No. 05-19-01335-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. W00-50025-K. Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell, Justices Bridges and Whitehill participating. Based on the Court’s opin ion of this date, we DIISMISS this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Judgment entered November 20, 2019
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7528

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RONALD LEE JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CR-98-7, CA-00-350)

Submitted: January 18, 2001 Decided: January 25, 2001

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Lee Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. John Staige Davis, V, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Lee Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2000). 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. Johnson, Nos. CR-98-7; CA-00-

350 (E.D. Va. Aug. 25, 2000). 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
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 97-60262

Summary Calender

_______________

WILLIAM R. WILLIAMS

and

ROBIN M. WILLIAMS,

Petitioners-Appellants,

VERSUS

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent-Appellee.

_________________________

Appeal from a Decision of

the United States Tax Court

(20980-95)

_________________________

May 13, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

William and Robin Williams (“taxpayers”) appeal the Tax

Court's denial of their motion to vacate its decision. Finding no

abuse of discretion, we affirm.
2

I.

The IRS notified taxpayers of a deficiency in the computation

of their income for tax years 1990 and 1991. The taxpayers filed

in the Tax Court a petition for a redetermination of the

deficiencies. Thereafter, the taxpayers and IRS entered into a

stipulation before the Tax Court, agreeing to the deficiencies

originally assessed; the Tax Court entered the stipulated decision.

About a month later, taxpayers retained new counsel, who

immediately filed a “motion for reconsideration and rehearing.”

The Tax Court, construing this as a motion to vacate under Tax

Court Rule 162, denied the motion.

II.

A.

We review the Tax Court's refusal to alter or amend its

judgment for an abuse of discretion. See Westbrook v.

Commissioner, 68 F.3d 868, 874 (5th Cir. 1995). “This court on

review may reverse a discretionary denial by the Tax Court of postopinion motions only if there are shown to be 'extraordinary

circumstances' justifying reversal.” Wilson v. Commissioner, 500

F.2d 645, 648 (2d Cir. 1974) (citation omitted).

B.

Taxpayers' argument is based on the contention that their
3

previous counsel misinformed them about the stipulation agreement

and that, in the stipulated judgment, they therefore were forced to

pay taxes on income they had not earned. For them, this constituted a per se “extraordinary circumstance” that mandated

reopening the judgment.

We disagree. The taxpayers' first counsel's alleged,

unilateral error is not enough to grant relief from a stipulated

agreement. See Stamm Int'l Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 315,

321-22 (1988). “[T]he mistakes of counsel, who is the legal agent

of the client, are chargeable to the client.” Pryor v. United

States Postal Serv., 769 F.2d 281, 288 (5th Cir. 1985) (citation

omitted). “Any other notion would be wholly inconsistent with our

system of representative litigation, in which each party is deemed

bound by the acts of his lawyer-agent and is considered to have

'notice of all facts, notice of which can be charged upon the

attorney.'” Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 634 (1962) (quoting

Smith v. Ayer, 101 U.S. 320, 326 (1879)).

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                    FORM 6-K

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

                        REPORT OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER

                        PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                          For the month of October 2004

                        Commission File Number 333-101591

                          GERDAU AMERISTEEL CORPORATION

                              5100 W. Lemon Street
                                   Suite 3100
                                 Tampa, Florida
                                      33609


     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual
                  reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

                     Form 20-F____      Form 40-F __X__


     Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in
           paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): ____

     Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in
           paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): ____

     Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in
     this Form, the registrant is also thereby furnishing the information to the
     Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of
     1934.

                           Yes ____     No __X__

       If "Yes" is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the
           registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82- ________



<PAGE>



                                  EXHIBIT LIST
                                  ------------


Exhibit        Description
-------        -----------

  99.1         Press Release, dated October 28, 2004




<PAGE>



                                   SIGNATURES

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.


Date:  October 28, 2004


                                  GERDAU AMERISTEEL CORPORATION


                                  By:       /s/ Tom J. Landa
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                  Name:     Tom J. Landa
                                  Title:    Vice-President, Chief Financial
                                            Officer and Secretary
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2054
JAMES PETER RAIBLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN CAMPBELL, Major, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-94-35-4-BO) Submitted: May 1, 1997 Decided: May 7, 1997 Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Peter Raible, Appellant Pro Se. Charles E. Simpson, Jr., HARRIS, SHIELDS & CREECH, New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his action with prejudice for failure to comply with discovery orders. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Raible v. Campbell , No. CA-94-35-4-BO (E.D.N.C. June 26, 1996). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 245 (Monday, December 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 76370]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29990]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-14-044]


Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

Agency Holding the Meeting: United States International Trade 
Commission

Time and Date: December 29, 2014, at 11 a.m.

Place: Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

Status: Open to the public.

Matters to be Considered

1. Agendas for future meetings: none
2. Minutes
3. Ratification List
4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-526-527 and 731-TA-1262-1263 
(Preliminary)(Melamine from China and Trinidad and Tobago). The 
Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its 
determinations on December 29, 2014; views of the Commission are 
currently scheduled to be completed and filed on January 6, 2015.
5. Outstanding action jackets: none

    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission:

    Issued: December 17, 2014.
William R. Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-29990 Filed 12-18-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
<PAGE>

                                                                       EXHIBIT 1

[KPMG LOGO]

KPMG LLP                                    Telephone (416) 777-8500
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS                       Fax       (416) 777-8818
Suite 3300 Commerce Court West              Internet www.kpmg.ca
PO Box 31 Stn Commerce Court
Toronto ON M5L 1B2

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors
FNX Mining Company

We consent to the use of our reports, dated March 10, 2005, included in this
annual report on Form 40-F.


/s/ KPMG LLP

Toronto, Canada
March 10, 2005
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

325 KA 08-00139
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ALTON A. DUNN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID M. ABBATOY, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN X. O’BRIEN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (John J. Ark, J.), rendered November 15, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [b]), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress statements that he made while in custody at the police station, before he was advised of his Miranda warnings. Although defendant is correct that he had not been Mirandized when two investigators initially questioned him in an interview room, defendant did not make any inculpatory statements at that time. In fact, he consistently denied involvement in the crime. Defendant was left alone for approximately one hour before one of the two investigators returned to the interview room, at which time Miranda warnings were administered and the questioning continued. Defendant made the incriminating statements at issue during the second interrogation. Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that there was a sufficiently “definite, pronounced break in the interrogation” to dissipate the taint resulting from the initial Miranda violation ( People v Chapple , 38 NY2d 112, 115; see People v Paulman , 5 NY3d 122, 130-131; People v Smith , 275 AD2d 951, lv denied 96 NY2d 739), and that the court therefore properly refused to suppress the incriminating statements at issue. We reject defendant’s further challenge to the severity of the sentence.

Entered: April 1, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 18

- 00191

- CR

TODD PECK, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 102nd District Court Bowie County, Texas Trial Court No. 17F1221

- 102

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.2 O R D E R Our review of the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record in this case indicates that they contain “sensitive data” as that phrase is defined in Rule 9.10 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX
. R. A PP . P. 9.10(a). Sensitive data includes “a birth date, a home address, and the name of any person who was a minor at the time the offense was committed.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 9.10(a)(3). The clerk’s record and volumes one, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen , and fourteen of the reporter’s record contain the names of persons who were minors at the time the offense was committed. Rule 9.10(b) states, “Unless a court orders othe rwise, an electronic or paper filing with the court, including the contents of any appendices, must not contain sensitive data.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 9.10(b). Rule 9.10(g) provides, “A court may also order that a document be filed under seal in paper form or electronic form, without redaction.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 9.10(g). Therefore, because the clerk’s record and volumes one, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen , and fourteen of the reporter’s record contain sensitive data, we order the clerk of this Court or h er appointee, in accordance with Rule 9.10(g), to seal the electronically filed clerk’s record and volumes one, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen , and fourteen of the reporter’s record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT
Date: July 17 , 2019
**EXHIBIT 10.9**

 

ANDREW CORPORATION

EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE BENEFIT PLAN AGREEMENT

 

THIS AGREEMENT, made this 5th day of July, 2004, by and between AndrewCorporation (the “Company”) and Mark Olson (the “Executive”),

 

WITNESSETH:

 

WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Andrew Corporation ExecutiveSeverance Benefit Plan, as amended and restated effective May 14, 2004 (the“Plan”); and

 

WHEREAS, the Executive has been designated as an eligible participantin the Plan;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Executive and Company hereby agree as follows:

 

1.                                       PlanBenefits.  The Executive has beendesignated as a TIER III Participant in the Plan and shall be eligible solelyfor the benefits set forth therein applicable to TIER III Participants.  The receipt of such benefits shall besubject to all of the terms and conditions set forth in the Plan, including,but not limited to, terms related to the amount, time and form ofbenefits.  By execution of thisAgreement, the Executive agrees to be bound by the provisions of the Plan, asamended and restated effective May 14, 2004, and as may be subsequentlyamended.

 

2.                                       Arbitration.  The Executive acknowledges thatSection 7.2 of the Plan contains an arbitration provision, and byexecution of this Agreement agrees to be bound by the terms of such arbitrationprovision.

 

3.                                       PlanNot Contract of Employment.  ThePlan does not constitute a contract of employment and nothing in the Plan shallbe construed to give the Executive the right to be retained by the Company orto any benefits not specifically provided by the Plan.

 

4.                                       PlanSupercedes Prior Change in Control Severance Agreements.  The Executive acknowledges and agrees thatthe benefits and terms set forth in the May 14, 2004 restatement of the Plan,as applicable to the Participant based on the Tier designated in paragraph 1above, are a replacement for and in lieu of any benefits to which the Executivemay have been entitled under the Plan prior to its restatement or under anyother agreement with the Company relating to Change in Control severancebenefits.  The Executive furtheracknowledges such benefits and terms may be subsequently amended pursuant toSection 7.1 of the Plan.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to beexecuted as of the date first above written.

 
| EXECUTIVE      | ANDREW CORPORATION                           |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------|
|           |                                         |
|           |                                         |
| /s/ Mark Olson |                                         | /s/ Ralph E. Faison |   |
| , individually |                                         | By: Ralph E. Faison |
|           | Its: President & Chief Executive Officer |
|                |                                              |  |  |  |

 

----