alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11/20/07 Note -- Great Plains  (K0155183.DOC;1)


Exhibit 10.1



COGNOVIT PROMISSORY NOTE OF

JOHN D. OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC.


$_800,000.00_________                              November 20, 2007 

                                                                    

For value received, the undersigned, promises to pay to the order of GREAT PLAINS EXPLORATION, LLC the principal sum of  Eight Hundred Thousand  Dollars ($_800,000.00_) with interest at the rate of  libor plus 1.75%   per annum.  Payment of Principal and accrued interest is due and payable upon DEMAND. 

The indebtedness evidenced hereby may be prepaid in whole or in part at any time without penalty or notice.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary which may be provided for, or implied by, the other terms of this Note, the entire principal balance, together with all accrued and unpaid interest and any other charges, advances and fees, if any, outstanding hereunder, shall be due and payable in full on demand.

The Maker waives demand presentment for payment, protest, notice of protest and of non-payment, and any and all lack of diligence or delays in collection or enforcement of this Note, and expressly consent to any extension of time of payment hereof, or any other indulgence of forbearance, any of which may be made without notice to any party and without in any way affecting the personal liability of any party.

The undersigned authorize any attorney-at-law to appear in any court of record in Lake County, Ohio after the indebtedness evidenced hereby becomes due in accordance with the terms hereof, whether by acceleration or otherwise, and to thereupon waive the issuing and service of process, waive presentment, demand, notice of dishonor, protest and notice of non-payment, and to confess judgment against the undersigned Makers, in favor of the holder hereof for the amount then appearing due together with the costs of this suit, and thereupon to waive all errors and all rights of appeal and stays of execution.


WARNING: BY SIGNING THIS PAPER, YOU GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT TO NOTICE AND COURT TRIAL.  IF YOU DO NOT PAY ON TIME, A COURT JUDGMENT MAY BE TAKEN AGAINST YOU WITHOUT YOUR PRIOR KNOWLEDGE AND THE POWERS OF A COURT CAN BE USED TO COLLECT FROM YOU REGARDLESS OF ANY CLAIMS YOU MAY HAVE AGAINST THE CREDITOR WHETHER FOR RETURNED GOODS, FAULTY GOODS, FAILURE ON HIS PART TO COMPLY WITH THE AGREEMENT, OR ANY OTHER CAUSE.


 JOHN D. OIL & GAS COMPANY, INC.

 
By:/s/ Gregory J. Osborne

      Gregory J. Osborne, President
#### John A. Champlin, Appellant, v Daniel S. Pellegrin, Respondent.

[974 NYS2d 379]

Order, Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Robert M. DiBella, J.), entered June 14, 2012, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The statute of limitations on a cause of action for legal malpractice is three years *(see*CPLR 214 [6]). Here, plaintiff’s claims accrued, at the latest, on October 7, 1997, three years after the underlying action had been marked by the court as “disposed.” However, plaintiff did not commence this action until February 2011, more than 16 years after the disposition of his case.

Contrary to plaintiffs assertions, the claim was not tolled by the continuous representation doctrine. Generally, tolling under the continuous representation doctrine “end[s] once the client is informed or otherwise put on notice of the attorney’s with*412drawal from representation” *(Shumsky v Eisenstein,*96 NY2d 164, 171 [2001]). The parties do not dispute that there were no communications between them from 1994 until 2011, when plaintiff purported to discharge defendant from representing him. The more than 16-year lapse in communications from defendant was sufficient to constitute reasonable notice to plaintiff that defendant was no longer representing him.

Furthermore, as there was no “clear indicia of an ongoing, continuous, developing, and dependent relationship between [plaintiff and defendant]” *(Pittelli v Schulman,*128 AD2d 600, 601 [2d Dept 1987] [internal quotation marks omitted]), or a “mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject matter[s] underlying the malpractice claim” *(McCoy v Feinman,*99 NY2d 295, 306 [2002]), we find that plaintiffs reliance on CPLR 321 (b) is misplaced.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Moskowitz, Renwick, DeGrasse and Gische, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         204,430
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  472,923
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (93,356)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               583,997
<PP&E>                                         598,231
<DEPRECIATION>                                  69,082
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,118,413
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          819,938
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,000
<COMMON>                                         7,812
<OTHER-SE>                                     238,973
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,118,413
<SALES>                                        513,539
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               513,539
<CGS>                                          445,250
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  193,587
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 149
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (132,512)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (132,512)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (132,512)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.2



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS



We hereby consent to the references in this Form 10-K of Plains Exploration & Production
Company, as well as in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in such Form 10-K, to our reserve reports to the interest of Plains Exploration & Production Company and its subsidiaries (collectively the Company),
relating to the estimated quantities of certain of the Companys proved reserves of oil and gas and present values thereof for certain periods. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of such reports in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (No. 333-102627, No. 333-107990, No. 333-115628 and No. 333-117425) and Form S-3 (No. 333-112027) of Plains Exploration & Production Company.



NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.By:

/s/ David B. CoxDavid B. Cox, P.E. Senior Vice President




Houston, Texas

March 6, 2006
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                           Subsidiaries of the Company

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                     Doing Business
Subsidiary                         State of Incorporation       under the Following Names
----------                         ----------------------       -------------------------

<S>                                <C>                          <C>
Sign Builders of
   America, Inc.                   Delaware                     Sign Builders of America, Inc.

Diamond Tech One, Inc.             Delaware                     Diamond Tech One, Inc

SDI Acquisition Corp.              Texas                        SDI Acquisition Corp.

Plasmatron Coatings and                                         Plasmatron Coatings and
     Systems, Inc.                 Pennsylvania                    Systems, Inc.

Field Emission Picture
     Element Technology, Inc.      Delaware                     FEPET, Inc.

Electronic Billboard                                            Electronic Billboard
     Technology, Inc.              Delaware                        Technology, Inc.
</TABLE>


                                    Page 63
Exhibit 32.1

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer Required by Rule 13a-14(b)and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code**

            I, Douglas A. Pertz, the Chief Executive Officer of IMC Global Inc., certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended March 31, 2004 of IMC Global Inc. fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of IMC Global Inc. 

May 7, 2004  

  

          Douglas A. Pertz            Douglas A. Pertz

 *Return to IMC Global Inc. Form 10-Q*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John O’Keefe, Appellant.

[976 NYS2d 663]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered July 11, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Although we conclude that the issue was not foreclosed by defendant’s guilty plea *(see People v DeYoung,*95 AD3d 71 [2d *Dept*2012]), we find that the court properly exercised its discretion in summarily denying defendant’s request for an alcohol and substance abuse evaluation and related proceedings pursuant to CEL 216.05. Such an evaluation is permissive *(Matter of*
      *525
      *Carty v Hall,*92 AD3d 1191 [3d Dept 2012]), and the court was not required to make explicit findings as to why it summarily denied the request. Given the colloquy between the court, prosecutor and defense counsel, it is clear that the court determined that defendant’s very extensive criminal record, including numerous felony convictions, made him an unsuitable candidate for a judicial diversion program, regardless of what an evaluation might reveal. There is no basis for disturbing that determination. Concur — Tom, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1998
<CASH>                                             200
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,908
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,171
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,409
<PP&E>                                         103,979
<DEPRECIATION>                                  42,305
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  86,861
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,033
<BONDS>                                          5,540
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           117
<OTHER-SE>                                      59,671
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    86,861
<SALES>                                         37,152
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,152
<CGS>                                           11,957
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,957
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,273
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 211
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,125
<INCOME-TAX>                                       349
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                776
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       776
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Gulizar N.O., Appellant. Rudy O., Respondent.

[974 NYS2d 801]

*750Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the appointment of counsel to represent the appellant and for a new hearing on the petition and a new determination thereafter.

The petitioner commenced this proceeding to appoint a guardian for the person and property of his daughter, the appellant. A hearing on the petition was conducted in the Supreme Court at which the appellant was not present.

The Supreme Court erred in conducting a hearing in the appellant’s absence. There was no evidence presented at the hearing that the appellant was unable to be present in court, that she was unable to participate in the hearing, or that no meaningful participation would result from her presence *(see*Mental Hygiene Law § 81.11 [c]; *Matter of Edward G.N.,*17 AD3d 600, 601 [2005]; *Matter of Rose P.,*15 AD3d 665 [2005]). Furthermore, the court failed to set forth in the resulting order and judgment of appointment a sufficient factual basis for conducting the hearing without the appellant being present *(see*Mental Hygiene Law § 81.11 [d]; *Matter of Lillian U.,*66 AD3d 1219, 1220 [2009]; *Matter of Edward G.N.,*17 AD3d at 601; *cf. Matter of E.H.,*13 Misc 3d 1233[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 52101[U] [Sup Ct, Bronx County 2006]).

Moreover, since there was no evidence that the appellant made an informed decision to refuse the assistance of counsel, the Supreme Court should have appointed counsel to represent her *(see*Mental Hygiene Law § 81.10 [c] [2], [3]; [d]; *see also Matter of Edward G.N.,*17 AD3d at 601). Eng, EJ., Balkin, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>          5

<MULTIPLIER>                                            1,000

<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                     Jan-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                      Dec-31-1999
<CASH>                                                  1,937
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           1,416
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                             2,188
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        5,694
<PP&E>                                                 16,977
<DEPRECIATION>                                          6,284
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         19,257
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   2,779
<BONDS>                                                 4,723
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                  176
<OTHER-SE>                                             10,957
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           19,257
<SALES>                                                 7,592
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        7,592
<CGS>                                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       18,235
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        842
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (9,002)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (9,002)
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (9,002)
<EPS-BASIC>                                              (.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            (.50)



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 27, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 25298]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12306]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice Number 6627]


Overseas Schools Advisory Council Notice of Meeting

    The Overseas Schools Advisory Council, Department of State, will 
hold its Annual Meeting on Thursday, June 18, 2009, at 9:30 a.m. in 
Conference Room 1105, Department of State Building, 2201 C Street, NW., 
Washington, DC. The meeting is open to the public and will last until 
approximately 12 p.m.
    The Overseas Schools Advisory Council works closely with the U.S. 
business community in improving those American-sponsored schools 
overseas, which are assisted by the Department of State and which are 
attended by dependents of U.S. Government families and children of 
employees of U.S. corporations and foundations abroad.
    This meeting will deal with issues related to the work and the 
support provided by the Overseas Schools Advisory Council to the 
American-sponsored overseas schools. The agenda includes a review of 
the recent activities of American-sponsored overseas schools and the 
overseas schools regional associations, a review of projects selected 
for the 2008 and 2009 Educational Assistance Program, which are under 
development, and reports on the use of the projects developed under the 
Educational Assistance Program by overseas schools since inception of 
the program in 1983.
    Members of the general public may attend the meeting and join in 
the discussion, subject to the instructions of the Chair. Admittance of 
public members will be limited to the seating available. Access to the 
State Department is controlled, and individual building passes are 
required for all attendees. Persons who plan to attend should so advise 
the office of Dr. Keith D. Miller, Department of State, Office of 
Overseas Schools, Room H328, SA-1, Washington, DC 20522-0132, telephone 
202-261-8200, prior to June 8, 2009. Each visitor will be asked to 
provide his/her date of birth and either driver's license or passport 
number at the time of registration and attendance, and must carry a 
valid photo ID to the meeting. Any requests for reasonable 
accommodation should be made at the time of registration. All such 
requests will be considered, however, requests made after June 11th 
might not be possible to fill. All attendees must use the C Street 
entrance to the building.

    Dated: May 20, 2009.
Keith D. Miller,
Executive Secretary, Overseas Schools Advisory Council, Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. E9-12306 Filed 5-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-24-P
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

					NO. 2-02-466-CR

DWAYNE ALLEN ROBBINS           						APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

	----------

	FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3  OF TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered appellant's “Motion To Dismiss Appeal.”  The motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).  No decision of this court having been delivered before we received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See id.; Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	GARDNER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and WALKER, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: October 9, 2003
EXHIBIT 31.1


                                 CERTIFICATIONS


I, Walter Witoshkin, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of QuantRx Biomedical Corporation;

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 officer 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)):

   (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; and

   (c) 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; and

       5. The registrant's other certifying officer 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 functions):

       (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; and

       (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


<PAGE>

         Date: November 15, 2006

                                              /s/ Walter Witoshkin
                                              ------------------------
                                              Walter Witoshkin
                                              Chief Executive Officer