alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.15

                                                                                
                                      NOTE
                                      ----

$41,000.00                                               Blossburg, Pennsylvania
                                                                  April 30, 1987


    FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Milesburg Energy, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation
("Maker"), promises to pay WITHOUT RECOURSE and WITHOUT INTEREST to Antrim
Mining, Inc. ("Holder") the sum of FORTY-ONE THOUSAND and 00/100 DOLLARS
($41,000.00), ON DEMAND after the CONDITION DATE.

    The Condition Date shall be the fifth business day following the date that
Condition I, as that term is defined by a certain Purchase and Sale Agreement
dated April 30, 1987 between Environmental Power Corporation and Neil W.
Hedrick, Richard Mase and Sylvia B. Mase, has been satisfied.

    Maker (i) waives trial by jury in any action on this Note or any security
for this Note, (ii) waives all requirements of diligence in collection,
presentment, notice of non-payment, protest, notice of protest, suit and all
other conditions precedent in connection with the collection and enforcement of
this Note or the realization of any security for this Note; (iii) waives the
right to require the Holder to proceed against any other person or to pursue any
other remedy before proceeding against it, and (iv) agrees that, if consented to
by Maker, no renewal or extension of this Note, including a renewal or extension
in which this Note is surrendered, no release, surrender or substitution of
security for this Note or the indebtedness evidenced hereby, no modification or
waiver of the terms of any instrument referred to herein or any other agreement
now or hereafter directly relating to this Note or the indebtedness evidenced
hereby, and, whether or not consented to by Maker, no delay or omission in
exercising any right or power under this Note or any security for this Note or
the indebtedness evidenced hereby, shall affect Maker's liability, and (vi)
agrees that additional makers, endorsers, guarantors, or sureties may become
parties hereto without notice to Maker and without affecting the Maker's
liability hereunder.

    Maker agrees to pay all reasonable costs and expenses including reasonable
attorneys' fees incurred by Holder in any proceeding for collection of the debt
evidenced hereby.

    This Note is given in satisfaction of a certain note given by Maker to
Holder dated April 21, 1987 in the principal amount of $41,000.00.
<PAGE>
 
    This Note shall take effect as a sealed instrument on the date first set
forth above and shall be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.

WITNESS                            MILESBURG ENERGY, INC.

/s/ Robert L. Diamond              By:  /s/ Neil W. Hedrick, President
------------------------------          ----------------------------------------
                                        Neil W. Hedrick, President

                                       2
**FEDERALMINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION**

 

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

 

BAC 6735-01

 

January 23, 2018

 

 

TIMEAND DATE:                10:00 a.m., Thursday, February 15, 2018

 

PLACE:                                  TheRichard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20004 (enter from  F Street entrance)

 

STATUS:                                Open

 

MATTERSTO BE 

CONSIDERED:                     TheCommission will consider and act upon the following in open session: *Secretaryof Labor v. Mach Mining, LLC,*Docket Nos. LAKE 2014-77, et al. (Issuesinclude whether the Judge erred by ruling that the operator did not violate astandard requiring that electrical protection devices on high voltage longwallequipment be properly maintained.)

 

 

Any person attending this meeting who requires specialaccessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign languageinterpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

 

 

CONTACTPERSON 

FOR MORE INFO:                EmogeneJohnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

                                                Relay/ 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

 

PHONE NUMBER

FOR LISTENING TO 

MEETING:                             1-(866)867-4769

                                                Passcode:678-100

 

 

                                                __________________________________

                                                SarahL. Stewart

                                                DeputyGeneral Counsel
Opinion issued August 14, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals

For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01

- 14

- 00483

- CR

——————————— KEITH EDWARD GRIMMET T , Appella nt

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1369980

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant
, Keith Edward Grimmett, attempts to appeal his March 17,

2014 conviction for murder

. Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.2(a), a2

notice of appeal was due on or before April 16, 2014

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.2(a).
Appellant filed h is notice of appeal on June 5, 2014

. 1

A notice of appeal that com plies with the requirements of R ule 26 is
essential to vest this court with jurisdiction. S ee S laton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208,

210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). The court of criminal appeals has expressly held that
without a timely filed notice of appeal or motion for extension of time we cannot
exercise jurisdiction over an appeal. See Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1996); see also Slaton , 981 S.W.2d at 210.
Because the notice of appeal in this case was untimely, we have no basis for
jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordi ngly, we dismiss the appeal for want of
jurisdiction. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.2(f) ; Slaton , 981 S.W.2d at 210; Olivo , 918

S.W.2d at 523

. We dismiss a ll pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Keyes.
Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

1 Appellant included an unsworn declaration with his n otice of a ppeal , which reflects that it was executed on May 23, 2014. Nevertheless, even if the notice of appeal was h anded to prison officials, and therefore would be considered filed, on May 23, 2014, the notice was untimely. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.2(b), 26.2(a); Campbell v. State , 320 S.W.3d 338, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-11-00035- CR
Misty Lara Her nand ez, A ppellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 264 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 645 52, H ONO RAB LE F ANCY H. JEZEK, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N P ER CURIAM

Appellant’s appoint ed counsel has filed a motion for extension of time to file appellant’ s brief

. T h i s C o urt has g ener ously g rante d counsel five prior motions for extension of time. On Fe bruar

y 7, 2012, we notified counsel that his b ri ef wa s o v er d u e and that if we did not receive a satisfac tory response on or before Febr uary 17, a hearing befor e the trial court would be
o rder ed. I n response , counsel filed a six th motion for extension of time. I n the motion, co u n s el repr esents that he needs additional time to file hi s brief beca use he had been “unable t o locate the repor ter’s rec ord filed in this case ” until the day he filed this motion and that he expects the brief to be complete d “ver

y soon.” A copy of the repor

ter’s rec ord in this case was filed in this Court over one y ear ag o,
on Fe bruar

y 23, 2011. Appellant’s brief was first due in this Court on Marc h 25, 2011. Under these circ umstances, we d eny counsel’s motion for extension of time. We instead abate the cause andrema

nd it to the district court to hold a hear ing in acc ordanc e with rule 38.8 of the rules of appellate proce dure. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(2), ( 3). The district c ourt shall hold a hearing immediately to deter mine whether appellant still wishes to prosec ute her appea l, whether appellant is indige nt, and whether counsel has abandone d the appea l. See id
. I f appellant desires to appea l and is indige nt, the district court should make a ppropriate order s to ensure tha t appellant is a dequate ly repr esente d on appea l. See id
. Following the hear ing, the district court should order the appropr iate supplementary cler k’s and repor

ter’s rec ords to be prepa

red and forwa

rded to this Court no later than April 2, 2012. See id
.

Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Rose Abated Filed: Mar ch 2, 2012 Do Not Publish

2
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1811 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1811

     To provide that requirements relating to transport of certain 
  agricultural commodities and other items shall not apply to certain 
                     assistance provided to Russia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 22, 1993

   Mr. Barrett of Nebraska introduced the following bill; which was 
       referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To provide that requirements relating to transport of certain 
  agricultural commodities and other items shall not apply to certain 
                     assistance provided to Russia.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REQUIREMENTS NOT APPLICABLE TO TRANSPORT OF CERTAIN 
              AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES AND OTHER ITEMS.

    (a) In General.--Sections 901(b) and 901b of the Merchant Marine 
Act, 1936 (46 App. U.S.C. 1241(b), 1241f) shall not apply to carriage 
or transport of any agricultural commodities or equipment, materials, 
products, goods, or services to or for Russia under the Vancouver 
Package.
    (b) Vancouver Package Defined.--In this section the term 
``Vancouver Package'' means the United States assistance for Russia 
that President Clinton outlined in his meetings with the President of 
the Russian Federation in Vancouver, Canada, in April 1993.

                                 <all>
```
(First Circuit — Hamilton Co., O., Circuit Court

Jan. Term, 1898.)

Before Cox, Smith and Swing, JJ.

#### HUGHES ET AL. v. DALE, ASSIGNEE OF E. E. EVANS & CO., ET AL.

*Priority of liens as between an attaching creditor prior to an as - signment and the claims of operatives employed by the*assignors—

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county.

The City Hall Bank obtained a magistrate’s judgment against E. E. Evans *&*Co. for $288.40 and costs, and made a levy thereunder upon machinery in the defendant’s factory previous to the making of the assignment. Thereafter an agreement was entered into between the bank and Ben B. Dale, assignee, that the property thus levied upon should be sold by the assignee, and the fund so derived should be held by the asignee for the bank to the ■ extent of its judgment with costs, the lien of the bank being thu's *646recognized to be the first and best against said property. At^the hearing below Judge Sayler held that the lien of the bank as obtained was first and best, and was prior to the claims of the operatives who, subsequent to the assignment, filed with the county recorder itemized statements of the amount, kind and value of the work performed by them in the said factory within a period of three months preceding the assignment, with all credits and off-sets, and the amounts severally due therefor.

*Oliver B. Jones*and *Scott*Bonham, for the Operatives.

*Schwab & Schultz,*for the Bank.

Swing, J.;

Cox, J., concurs; Smith, J., dissents.

A majority of the court are of the opinion that the judgment of the court of common pleas in this case should be affirmed, on the ground that the property levied upon by the bank did not pass to the assignee and become part of the assets of this trust by virtue of the assignment, but passed by virtue of an agreement between the bank and the assignee, and therefore did not become assets in his hands as such assignee, to be distributed according to law.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THERMA-WAVE,
INC.'S FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-02-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-05-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-02-2000
<CASH>                                         $11,699
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,389
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,597
<INVENTORY>                                     23,369
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                62,096
<PP&E>                                           4,589
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,104
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  76,281
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,905
<BONDS>                                        115,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           16,073
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           112
<OTHER-SE>                                    (73,754)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    76,281
<SALES>                                         79,031
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                79,031
<CGS>                                           42,301
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,301
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,330
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,545
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,702)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,702)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,702)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.54)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THERMA-WAVE,
INC.'S FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         $17,614
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,657
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,812
<INVENTORY>                                     20,739
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,555
<PP&E>                                           6,760
<DEPRECIATION>                                     946
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  86,870
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,078
<BONDS>                                        115,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           14,101
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           114
<OTHER-SE>                                     (69,851)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    86,870
<SALES>                                         56,491
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                56,491
<CGS>                                           26,401
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,401
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,237
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,781
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (229)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (359)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (359)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 27 (Thursday, February 8, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 9607]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3295]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[NAFTA-2669-2669A]


Mitchell Manufacturing Group, a Lamont Group Company; Clare and 
Owosso, MI; Amended Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration

    In accordance with Section 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title 
II, of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273), on March 9, 
1999, the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Revised Determination 
on Reconsideration, applicable to all workers of Mitchell Manufacturing 
Group, A Lamont Company, located in Clare, Michigan. The notice was 
published in the Federal Register on March 30, 1999 (64 FR 15172).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. Information provided by 
the State shows that worker separations occurred at the Lamont Group's 
sister plant, the Owosso Division, Owosso, Michigan. The workers 
provided support services to the Clare, Michigan plant, and were 
engaged in employment related to the production of automotive soft 
trim.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Mitchell Manufacturing Group, A Lamont Group Company, 
adversely affected by increased imports from Mexico. Therefore, the 
Department is amending the certification to cover workers at the 
subject firm in Owosso, Michigan, engaged in employment related to the 
production of automotive trim.
    The amended notice applicable to NAFTA-2669 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Mitchell Manufacturing Group, A Lamont Group 
Company, Clare, Michigan, and workers of Mitchell Manufacturing 
Group, A Lamont Group Company, Owosso Division, Owosso, Michigan, 
engaged in employment related to the production of automotive trim, 
who became totally or partially separated from employment on or 
after October 2, 1997 through March 9, 2001, are eligible to apply 
for NAFTA-TAA under Section 250 of the Trade Act of 1974.


    Signed at Washington, DC this 31st day of January 2001.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-3295 Filed 2-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 27 (Thursday, February 8, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 9576]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3219]



[[Page 9576]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License; Reissuances

    Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation 
Intermediary licenses have been reissued by the Federal Maritime 
Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984, as 
amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) 
and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of 
Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR part 515.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       License No.            Name/address           Date reissued
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4337F...................  Air-Land & Sea       March 30, 2000.
                           Transport, Inc.,
                           3000 Wilcrest,
                           Suite #350,
                           Houston, TX 77042.
12237N..................  Costa Rica           October 6, 2000.
                           Carriers, Inc.,
                           8620 NW 70th
                           Street, Miami, FL
                           33166.
15703N..................  MSD Line, Inc.,      November 24, 2000.
                           2400 S. Wilmington
                           Avenue, Compton,
                           CA 90220.
4105F...................  Overseas Mahanm      March 18, 1999.
                           Inc., 24 Lillian
                           Lane, Plainview,
                           NY 11803-5613.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sandra L. Kusumoto,
Director, Bureau of Consumer Complaints and Licensing.
[FR Doc. 01-3219 Filed 2-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0532

REC ADVANCED SILICON 

MATERIALS, LLC,

 Petitioner and Appellee, 

 v.

SARAH MACIAG,

 Respondent and Appellant,

MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

AND INDUSTRY, HUMAN RIGHTS 

COMMISSION,

 Respondents.

ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parties having failed to jointly 

and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c),

IT IS ORDERED THAT Lawrence E. Henke, (406) 782-1111 whose name 

appears next on the list of attorneys desiring appointment as mediators for Money 

Judgments appeals which is maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby 

appointed to conduct the mediation process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time periods set forth in M.R.App.P., 

7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appointment.

A true copy of this order is being mailed to counsel of record for the parties, or to 

the parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof.

DATED this November 30, 2020.

Bowen Greenwood, Clerk of the Supreme Court

c: Lee M. McKenna, Scott Louis Peterson, 

Patrick Thomas Fleming, Lawrence E. Henke

11/30/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0532