alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.94.2



                                 AMENDMENT NO. 2
                                       TO
                             SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE


         This Amendment No. 2 (this  "AMENDMENT") to the Secured Promissory Note
is executed as of January 2, 2002, between Trans Textil  International,  S.A. de
C.V. (formerly,  Tex Transas, S.A. de C.V.), a corporation formed under the laws
of  the  Republic  of  Mexico  (the  "COMPANY"),   Tarrant  Company  Limited,  a
corporation formed under the laws of Hong Kong ("TCL"),  and Trade Link Holdings
Company,  a  corporation  formed  under  the  laws  of  Hong  Kong  ("TLH"  and,
collectively with TCL, the "PAYEES").

         WHEREAS, the Payees collectively are the holder of that certain Secured
Promissory  Note,  dated  October 5, 2000, in the original  principal  amount of
$47,702,128.00, as amended as of December 18, 2001 (the "NOTE").

         WHEREAS,  the Company and Payees  desire to amend the Note as set forth
in this Amendment.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
contained herein, and for other good and valuable  consideration the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

1. The Note is hereby amended as follows:

         Effective  as of November 1, 2001,  the  interest  that  accrues on the
         outstanding  principal  amount of the Note  shall be payable in full on
         December 31, 2002 and in annual installments  thereafter on December 31
         of each calendar year.

2. Except as expressly  set forth above,  the terms and  conditions  of the Note
shall remain unchanged by this Amendment and the Note shall remain in full force
and effect in accordance with its terms.

3. This  Amendment  may be executed in two or more  counterparts,  each of which
shall  constitute  an original,  but all of which,  when taken  together,  shall
constitute one and the same instrument.

                    [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK.]



<PAGE>


         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties have caused this Amendment to be duly
executed as of the date first above written.

                                     COMPANY

                                     TRANS TEXTIL INTERNATIONAL, S.A. de C.V.

                                     By:        /S/ KAMEL NACIF
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Kamel Nacif

                                     Its:     AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
                                              ----------------------------------

ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED AS
OF THE DATE FIRST ABOVE WRITTEN:

PAYEES:

TARRANT COMPANY LIMITED

By:        /S/ EDDY YUEN
         ----------------------------

Its:     AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY


TRADE LINK HOLDINGS COMPANY

By:        /S/ EDDY YUEN
         ----------------------------
         Eddy Yuen

Its:     AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
EXHIBIT 99.2

                                CERTIFICATION OF
                                ----------------
                   DANIEL H. STACKEN, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                   ------------------------------------------
                       OF MINNESOTA CORN PROCESSORS, LLC
                       ---------------------------------
                         PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350
                         ------------------------------


In connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending
June 30, 2002 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel H. Stacken, Vice President of Finance and
Chief Financial Officer of Minnesota Corn Processors, LLC (the "Company"),
hereby certify that:

         1.       The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) 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/ Daniel H. Stacken
                                    ------------------------
                                    Name: Daniel H. Stacken
                                    Date:   August 14, 2002
256 La. 270

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Frank STEWART.

No. 50654.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 8, 1970.

In re: Frank Stewart applying for writ of review.

Writ refused. Considering the testimony of the witnesses and the accused himself, and the gravity of the offense, we can not conclude that the amount of bail fixed is excessive.
#### Leon SULTAN and Fred Sultan d/b/a Sultan & Sons, Appellants, v. PHYLLIS MORRIS ORIGINALS, Appellee.

No. 71-61.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 7, 1971.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; M. Daniel Futch, Jr., Judge.

Appeal quashed.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. James Eugene MATNEY and Leo Dean Welsh, Appellees.

No. M-69.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 9, 1970.

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1970.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Joseph A. St. Ana, Jacksonville, for ap-pellees.

PER CURIAM.

The State of Florida has appealed a final judgment dismissing the information filed against appellees herein and discharging them from custody because of the State’s failure or refusal to divulge the name of its confidential informant whose information was used in part as a basis for procuring a search warrant. The judgment is reversed upon the authority of the decision of this court in the companion case of State of Florida v. James Eugene Matney, Leo Schuty a/k/a Leo Dean Welsh, and Susan Lind Hyers a/k/a Susan F. Matney, Case No. M-82, opinion filed this date, 236 So.2d 166.

JOHNSON, C. J„ and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
#### John BALDWIN, County Superintendent of Walton County, Glen Parker, Willie Collingsworth, Colie Ward, John Henry Cassidy and W. C. Gandy, Members of the Board of Public Instruction of Walton County, Florida, Appellants, v. John Frank BLUDWORTH, Appellee.

No. 0-33.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 2, 1971.

Rehearing Denied May 12, 1971.

Andrews & Miller, DeFuniak Springs, for appellants.

David H. Bludworth & Clyde B. Wells, DeFuniak Springs, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the order of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., RAWLS, J., and VANN, HAROLD R., Associate Judge, concur.
1

Medina, Dayana

From: Medina, Dayana

Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 5:27 PM

To: Reitter, Annabeth

Subject: RE: Domtar Ashdown Mill Call Agenda

Attachments: Domtar_questions.docx

Hi Annabeth,  

For the fourth bulletpoint on the agenda, I’ve attached a file with some questions we have regarding the information

you have provided. We’ll discuss these tomorrow during the call, but I thought it might be helpful if I shared these in

writing as well.    

Thanks,  

Dayana Medina

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6

Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division

Air Planning Section (6PD‐L)

214‐665‐7241

From: Reitter, Annabeth [mailto:Annabeth.Reitter@domtar.com]  

Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 3:39 PM

To: Donaldson, Guy; Feldman, Michael; Nann, Barbara; Medina, Dayana; Crouch, Kelley; Jeremy Jewell

(jjewell@trinityconsultants.com); 'MThimke@foley.com'; Grygotis, Bob; Zuercher, Barry

Subject: Domtar Ashdown Mill Call Agenda

To All:

Attached is an agenda for the conference call tomorrow morning with EPA Region 6 to review the Domtar Ashdown Mill

Section 114 responses.  Please let me know if there are any additions or adjustments needed to the agenda.   

Looking forward to the discussion tomorrow.

Annabeth

Annabeth Reitter

Corporate Manager, Environmental Regulation 

T 715-886-7785 | C 715-459-9257 The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

Domtar

301 Point Basse Avenue

Nekoosa, WI 54457

Domtar reminds you to print responsibly. Learn more about paper as a sustainable choice at paperbecause.com 

This email is for the exclusive use of the addressee and is subject to Domtar Confidentiality Notice.
#### Ex parte UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION.

77-278.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 9, 1978.

PER CURIAM.

WRIT QUASHED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

All the Justices concur, except BEATTY, J., who dissents.
#### CITY OF PENSACOLA, Florida, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS COMMISSION, Respondent.

No. HH-88.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 11, 1978.

*590John-Edward Alley and Richard R. Parker of Alley & Alley, P.A., Tampa, for petitioner.

I. Jeffrey Pheterson, Staff Atty. and William E. Powers, Jr., Gen. Counsel, Tallahassee, for respondent.

SMITH, Judge.

The provisions and procedures of the local option ordinances of the City of Pensacola were previously approved by the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) as being substantially equivalent to those set forth in Chapter 447, Part II, Florida Statutes (1975). Pensacola now petitions for review of a PERC order directing Pensacola to amend its local option ordinances to bring its provisions and procedures into substantial compliance with amendments to Chapter 447 by Chapter 77-343, Laws of Florida. PERC has authority to enter an order of the character complained of, Section 447.603, Florida Statutes (1977). The order did not perform rulemaking functions in violation of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes (1977), but was subject to the requirements of Section 120.57(2), applicable to an agency determining the substantial interests of a party in proceedings not involving a disputed issue of material fact. See *General Development Corp. v. Div. of State Planning, Dep’t of Admin.,*353 So.2d 1199, 1209 et seq. (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Inasmuch as the only issue presented by Pensacola is one of law, which we here decide, PERC’s failure in this instance to comply with certain requirements of Section 120.57(2) was not a material error impairing the fairness of the proceedings or the correctness of the action taken by the agency. Section 120.-68(8).

The prayer of the petition for review is DENIED.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and BLACK, SUSAN, Associate Judge, concur.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 09-1129 

________________________________________________________________________ 

WEAPONS 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and the CZECH REPUBLIC 

Signed at Prague October 31, 2008 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 CZECH REPUBLIC 

 Weapons 

 Agreement signed at Prague October 31, 2008; 

 Entered into force November 29, 2009.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 60**  **60**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. HAISSAM NASHAR, a/k/a Sam , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Richard L. Voorhees , District Judge. ( 3:06

- cr - 00084

- RLV

- 1; 3:10

- cv - 00092

- RLV )

Submitted : April 26, 2012 Decided: May 1, 2012

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Haissam Nashar , Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Michel Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Haissam Nashar seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstra ting that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have indepen dently reviewed the record and conclude that Nashar has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 96-1122 

________________________________________________________________________ 

EXTRADITION 

 Treaty Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and the PHILIPPINES 

Signed at Manila November 13, 1994 

 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 PHILIPPINES 

 Extradition 

Treaty signed at Manila November 13, 1994; 

Transmitted by the President of the United States of America 

 to the Senate September 5, 1995 (Treaty Doc. 104-16, 

 104th Congress, 1st Session); 

Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

 July 24, 1996 (Senate Executive Report No. 104-29, 

 104th Congress, 2d Session); 

Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate 

 August 2, 1996; 

Ratified by the President November 4, 1996; 

Exchange of instruments of ratification at Manila 

 November 22, 1996; 

Entered into force November 22, 1996.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 97-318 

________________________________________________________________________ 

EXTRADITION 

 Treaty Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and HUNGARY 

Signed at Budapest December 1, 1994 

 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 HUNGARY 

 Extradition 

Treaty signed at Budapest December 1, 1994; 

Transmitted by the President of the United States of America 

 to the Senate May 8, 1995 (Treaty Doc. 104-5, 

 104th Congress, 1st Session); 

Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

 July 24, 1996 (Senate Executive Report No. 104-27, 

 104th Congress, 2d Session); 

Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate 

 August 2, 1996; 

Ratified by the President November 4, 1996; 

Ratifications exchanged at Washington March 18, 1997; 

Entered into force March 18, 1997.
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 4.4

Long-Term Debt Instruments

AECOM Merger Corporation agrees to furnish to the Securities and Exchange
Commission, upon request, a copy of any instrument with respect to long-term
debt for which the total amount of the securities authorized thereunder does not
exceed 10% of the total assets of AECOM Merger Corporation and its subsidiaries
on a consolidated basis.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory

2565 Plymouth Road

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105-2498

May 19, 2011

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Results of Discussions with Aviation Gas Turbine Manufactures on the Potential 

Number of Exemptions from the Tier 6 Production Cutoff for the Proposed 

Rulemaking on Aircraft Engine Emission Standards

FROM: Richard S. Wilcox /s/ 

Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Air and Radiation

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

TO: The Air and Radiation Docket

Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687

The Agency intends to propose new NOx emission standards and compliance flexibilities 

for aircraft gas turbine engines with rated thrusts greater than 26.7 kilonewtons. Among the 

anticipated requirements is a proposed provision that would provide for certain time-limited 

exemptions from the proposed Tier 6 NOx standards for newly-manufactured engines. (These 

standards are identical to the ICAO CAEP/6 standards). The proposed exemption is similar to 

the provision contained in ICAO’s Environmental Technical Manual (ETM). This memorandum 

documents the results of our discussions with representatives of the three engine manufacturers 

that would be directly affected by a proposed exemption. 

Discussions were held with General Electric, Pratt and Whitney USA, and Rolls-Royce 

between April and June 2010. There was consensus among the parties that a numerical limit of 

75 per manufacturer, or more specifically type certificate holder, with some flexibility for more 

exemptions to allow for unusual circumstances, was reasonable for the proposed Tier 6 NOx 

standards. It was also agreed that if a newly-manufactured engine requirement is considered in 

the future for the proposed Tier 8 NOx standards (i.e., CAEP/8 standards), than any numerical 

limit associated with those standards would need to be evaluated based on information available 

at the time. 

.
255 La. 805

#### Noah DESHOTEL v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY.

No. 50442.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 3, 1970.

In re: Travelers Indemnity Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Acadia. 231 So.2d 448.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51095-51096]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25803]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP97-737-000]

Mississippi River Transmission Corporation; Notice of Request 
Under Blanket Authorization

September 24, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 8, 1997, Mississippi River 
Transmission Corporation (MRT), 1600 Smith Street, Houston, Texas 
77002, filed in Docket No. CP97-737-000 a request pursuant to Sections 
157.205 and 157.211 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural 
Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 157.211) for authorization to construct and 
operate certain facilities in Sauget, Illinois, under MRT's blanket 
certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-489-000 pursuant to Section 7 of 
the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the request that is 
on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    Specifically, MRT proposes to install and operate a 4-inch tap to 
serve an industrial customer, Industrial Products, Inc., (Industrial 
Products), in St. Clair, Illinois. MRT states that the total estimated 
volumes to be delivered to these facilities are 500,000 MMBtu annually 
and 3,500 MMBtu on a peak day. The estimated total cost of the 
facilities is $102,965, and Industrial Products will reimburse MRT all 
of the actual construction costs.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of

[[Page 51096]]

the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the 
Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or 
notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of the 
Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the 
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, the 
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day 
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and 
not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-25803 Filed 9-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
Exhibit 99.3



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Tullys Coffee Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Anthony J. Gioia, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|/s/    ANTHONY J.
GIOIA              
|-------------------------------------
|Anthony J. Gioia                     
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|June 30, 2003