alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10.4

 

 PROMISSORY NOTE
 

 

 May 8, 2013
 

 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Mascota Resources Corp., a Nevada Corporation, promises to pay Maria Ernestina Virgen Ponce, on or before December 31, 2016, the amount of Five Thousand ($5,000.00) in the currency of the United States, plus simple interest on the principal amount of this Promissory Note accrued at a rate of 6% per annum.
 

 Time shall be the essence of this Promissory Note.
 

 This Promissory Note shall be governed by and constituted in accordance with the laws of the State of Nevada.
 

 

 MASCOTA RESOURCES CORP.
 

 

 Per /s/ María Ernestina Virgen Ponce
      María Ernestina Virgen Ponce, Pres., CEO, CFO
#### Allen Paltie et al., Plaintiffs, v Marquise Construction Corp. et al., Defendants. Marquise Construction Corp., Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v Allstar Electric, ThirdParty Defendant-Respondent. (And Another Action.)

[852 NYS2d 774]

The record evidence establishes that third-party plaintiff *381Marquise Construction Corp. (Marquise), the general contractor on the work site, undertook the responsibility to hire and supervise laborers to clean the work site. Allstar, the electrical subcontractor, had no such duty, and did not create the hazardous debris condition that caused its employee to slip and fall on an internal staircase. Marquise recognized that the subject wall compound droppings and dust left behind by a sheet-rocking subcontractor constituted a safety hazard, and that such conditions were recurring on the premises. Accordingly, summary judgment dismissing the contractual indemnification cause of action was properly granted, where there was no evidence that negligence on the part of Allstar contributed to its employee’s fall *(see Arenas v Bon-Ton Dept. Stores, Inc., 35*AD3d 1205, 1207 [2006]). Absent any evidence of negligence on the part of Allstar, there is also no viable common-law indemnification claim. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Gonzalez, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.
THE STATE OF TEXAS

MANDATE

TO THE 6TH DISTRICT COURT OF LAMAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 19th 

day of May, A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was determined; 

and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Robert Bryan Finch, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

No. 06-14-00182-CR

Trial Court No. 25677

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, Robert Bryan Finch, has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this 

behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with 

the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 16th day of July, A.D. 2015.

DEBRA K. AUTREY, Clerk
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONALD K. HOOKS, Regional 

Director of the Nineteenth Region of 

the National Labor Relations Board, 

for and on behalf of the NATIONAL 

LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 

Petitioner-Appellee, 

 v. 

NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC., 

DBA KOIN-TV, 

Respondent-Appellant.

No. 21-35252 

D.C. No.

3:21-cv-00177-

MO 

ORDER

Filed June 29, 2023

Before: William A. Fletcher, Sandra S. Ikuta, and Daniel 

A. Bress, Circuit Judges.
2 HOOKS V. NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC.

ORDER

The petition for rehearing en banc, filed January, 19, 

2023, is DENIED. (Dkt. 57). The majority of the panel has 

voted to deny appellee’s petition for rehearing. The full 

court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. 

A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en 

banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of votes of the 

nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. 

Fed. R. App. P. 35(a). Judge Forrest did not participate in 

the deliberations or vote in this case. No further petitions for 

rehearing or rehearing en banc will be entertained.
@misc{1213161,
  author = {Peter Mell and Dylan Yaga},
  title = {Understanding Stablecoin Technology and Related Security Considerations},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-09-05 04:09:00},
  publisher = {NIST Interagency/Internal Report (NISTIR), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936461},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8408},
  language = {en},
}
TDCJ Offender Details Page 1 of2 

23~5CJO-o( G) iltfilij.J,M@ • 

Offender Information Details 

Return to Search list 

SID Number: 

TDCJ Number: 

Name: 

Race: 

Gender: 

DOB: 

Maximum Sentence Date: 

Current Facility: 

Projected Release Date: 

Parole Eligibility Date: 

Offender Visitation Eligible: 

05848641 

02002337 

PEREZ,CHRISTOPHER RANDY 

H 

M 

1981-09-16 

2024-01-09 

JOE F GURNEY 

2024-01-09 

2019-01-09 

YES 

Information provided is updated once daily during weekdays and multiple times per day 

on visitation days. Because this information is subject to change, family members and 

friends are encouraged to call the unit prior to traveling for a visit. 

SPECIAL INFORMATION FOR SCHEDULED RELEASE: 

Scheduled Release Date: Offender is not scheduled for release at this time. 

Scheduled Release Type: Will be determined when release date is scheduled. 

Scheduled Release Location: Will be determined when release date is scheduled. 

- Parole Review Information 

Offense History: 

Offense 

Date 

I 

Offense Sentence C t Case N Sentence (YY -MMDate oun Y o. DO) 

I I I I 

http:/ /offender. tdcj. texas.gov/OffenderSearch/offenderDetail.action ?sid=05 848641 7/16/2015
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6816
ROBERT BIGGS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NURSE CARTWRIGHT; MR. WEEKS, Defendants - Appellees, and WILLIAM C. MEADOWS; SUPERINTENDENT BARNES, Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-93-17-BR) Submitted: September 10, 1996 Decided: September 24, 1996 Before ERVIN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Biggs, Appellant Pro Se. James Peeler Smith, Assistant Attorney General, David L. Woodard, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewedthe record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Biggs v. Cartwright , No. CA-93-17-BR (E.D.N.C. May 10, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | 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. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                Greg Goldberg            |
|---------------------------------------------|
| Greg                Goldberg                |
| President                                   |
| (Chief                Executive Officer and |
| Chief                Financial Officer)     |
| October                17, 2008             |

----
IV 

House Calendar No. 3 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 52 

{Report No. 116–3] 

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 28) making 

further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2019, and for other 

purposes, and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the 

rules. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 16, 2019 

Ms. SCANLON, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 

28) making further continuing appropriations for fiscal 

year 2019, and for other purposes, and providing for 

consideration of motions to suspend the rules. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to consider in the House the joint resolu3 tion (H.J. Res. 28) making further continuing appropria4 tions for fiscal year 2019, and for other purposes. All 

5 points of order against consideration of the joint resoluVerDate Sep 11 2014 20:45 Jan 16, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR52.RH HR52

pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 52 RH 

1 tion are waived. The joint resolution shall be considered 

2 as read. All points of order against provisions in the joint 

3 resolution are waived. The previous question shall be con4 sidered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any 

5 amendment thereto to final passage without intervening 

6 motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 

7 controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of 

8 the Committee on Appropriations or their respective des9 ignees; and (2) one motion to recommit. 

10 SEC. 2. It shall be in order at any time through the 

11 legislative day of January 25, 2019, for the Speaker to 

12 entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as 

13 though under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or her 

14 designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or his des15 ignee on the designation of any matter for consideration 

16 pursuant to this section. 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS

pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
House Calendar No. 3 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 52 

{Report No. 116–3] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution 

to suspend the rules. poses, and providing for consideration of motions priations for fiscal year 2019, and for other pur-(H.J. Res. 28) making further continuing approJANUARY 16, 2019 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000012779
<NAME>                        BLUE RIDGE REAL ESTATE CO

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         2,553,510
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    448,838
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                      213,215
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,835,847
<PP&E>                                        53,894,805
<DEPRECIATION>                                33,774,181
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                23,956,471
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,963,832
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                       1,947,358
<OTHER-SE>                                             0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  23,956,471
<SALES>                                       18,886,919
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              18,886,919
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 17,955,281
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               732,201
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  819,640
<INCOME-TAX>                                     339,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     480,640
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .24



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 AdAl Group Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen Goodacre,
Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (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.

                                        /s/ Stephen Goodacre
                                        -----------------------------
                                        Stephen Goodacre
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        (Principal Financial Officer)
                                        April 15, 2005

This Certification is made solely for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request. This written statement shall not be deemed to be "filed" as part
of the annual report on Form 10-KSB that it accompanies.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                              73
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    73
<PP&E>                                         248,491
<DEPRECIATION>                                (91,532)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 158,405
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,233
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,105
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   158,405
<SALES>                                         40,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,204
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,361
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,435
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,435
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,435
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.81


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges McCullough, Decker and Senior Judge Felton 

OPAL BROCK 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0265-15-3 PER CURIAM 

 JULY 14, 2015 

WISE COUNTY DEPARTMENT 

 OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WISE COUNTY 

John C. Kilgore, Judge 

 (H. Fuller Cridlin; Cridlin Law Office, on briefs), for appellant. 

 (Jeremy B. O’Quinn; Hugh O’Donnell, Guardian ad litem for the 

infant children; The O’Quinn Law Office, P.L.L.C., on brief), for 

appellee. 

 Opal Brock (mother) appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children pursuant 

to Code § 16.1-283(B), 16.1-283(C)(1), and 16.1-283(C)(2). Mother argues the trial court erred in 

finding that, without good cause, she (1) failed to maintain continuing contact with and to provide or 

substantially plan for the future of her children and (2) was unwilling or unable within a reasonable 

period of time to remedy the conditions that led to the children’s foster care placement. 

 Mother argues there was “good cause” for her failure to complete all the programs required 

by the foster care plan under Code § 16.1-283(C) because she had limited financial resources, 

limited access to a telephone, and limited access to transportation. Citing Code § 16.1-283(C), 

mother also argues she made efforts that showed a willingness to remedy the condition that led to 

the children’s foster care placement. 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

UNPUBLISHED 
 - 2 - 

 On appeal, mother challenges the termination of her parental rights under Code 

§ 16.1-283(C), but not under Code § 16.1-283(B). Terminations under Code § 16.1-283(B) and the 

subsections of Code § 16.1-283(C) provide distinct, “individual bases upon which a petitioner may 

seek to terminate residual parental rights.” City of Newport News Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Winslow, 

40 Va. App. 556, 563, 580 S.E.2d 463, 466 (2003). Mother’s failure to challenge the termination 

under Code § 16.1-283(B) renders moot her claim regarding the termination under Code 

§ 16.1-283(C), and we need not consider it. See Winslow, 40 Va. App. at 563, 580 S.E.2d at 466. 

 Accordingly, upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude this appeal 

is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See 

Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.
S04A1257.

#### THARP v. HARPAGON COMPANY.

(604 SE2d 156)

HUNSTEIN, Justice.

After Nathan H. Tharp, Jr. brought suit seeking, inter alia, the cancellation of a tax deed and injunctive relief barring transfer of the property that was subject to that deed, Harpagon Company, the property’s current owner, filed an answer and a counterclaim in which it initiated a conventional quiet title proceeding, sought damages for trespass and conversion and asked for attorney fees. For Tharp’s failure to comply with its orders the trial court granted Harpagon’s motion to involuntarily dismiss Tharp’s claims. A special master thereafter heard the quiet title proceeding and the trial court adopted the special master’s recommendation that it rule in favor of Harpagon. Harpagon dismissed its remaining claims and the trial court awarded it $36,028 in attorney fees and costs against both Tharp and his counsel. This appeal ensued.

*655Decided October 12, 2004

Reconsideration denied November 22, 2004.

*Leon A. Van Gelderen, Stephen M. Levinson, Francis X. Moore, Tilden R. Reid II,*for appellant.

*Proctor & Chambers, Robert J. Proctor, Bradley A. Hutchins,*for appellee.

1. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court in this appeal from a judgment entered in a conventional quia timet action, see OCGA § 23-3-40 et seq., brought to remove a cloud from the title of real property caused by equities of redemption following a tax sale. See generally *Johnson v. Red Hill Associates,*278 Ga. 334 (602 SE2d 572) (2004).

2. Tharp raises on appeal numerous issues regarding the manner in which the tax foreclosure was handled, all of which would have been matters of proof in the proceedings below. “However, since no transcript was made of the proceeding before the special master in which the facts of the case were established, the special master’s findings on which the trial court’s judgment was based cannot be reviewed. [Cit.]” Id. at 336 (3).

3. Tharp also raises for the first time on appeal numerous issues not raised or ruled upon below. Accordingly, we cannot address Tharp’s arguments. See generally *Gotel v. Thomas,*277 Ga. 532, 533 (592 SE2d 78) (2004).

4. Issuance of the tax execution in the name of Tharp’s predecessor in interest, who owned the property as of January 1 of the tax year at issue, was proper. See OCGA §§ 48-5-10, 48-5-9; *Jamestown Associates v. Fulton County Bd. of Tax Assessors,*228 Ga. App. 360 (492 SE2d 1) (1997). Contrary to Tharp’s argument, the holding in *Canoeside Properties v. Livsey,*277 Ga. 425 (589 SE2d 116) (2003) is not applicable where, as here, the evidence establishes that the property sold at the tax sale was the property of the actual title holder at the time of the sale, i.e., Tharp.

5. The attorney fee award imposed by the trial court having already been paid by Tharp’s attorney, his enumerations of error regarding that award are moot. See OCGA § 5-6-48 (b).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
**ESCO,
      INC. 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 Quarterly Report of ESCO, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-QSB/A for the period ending September 30, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William
      T. Foley, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(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.




/s/ William T. FoleyWilliam
              T. FoleyPresident and Chief Financial
              OfficerNovember
                12, 2007


A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      ESCO, Inc. and will be retained by ESCO, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.