alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 187 (Friday, September 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50620-50621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25524]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[NM-932-4120-05; NMNM 99768]


Invitation To Participate; Exploration for Coal in New Mexico

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Members of the public are hereby invited to participate with 
San Juan Coal Company on a pro rata cost sharing basis, in a program 
for the exploration of coal deposits owned by the United States of 
America. The lands are located in San Juan County, New Mexico, and are 
described as follows:

T. 30 N., R. 14 W., NMPM
    Sec. 17, All;
    Sec. 18, All;
    Sec. 19, All;
    Sec. 20, All;
    Sec. 29, All;
    Sec. 30, All;
    Sec. 31, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, N\1/2\N\1/2\S\1/2\;

    Containing 4483.88 acres, more or less. Interested parties may 
obtain a complete description of the lands covered in the 
exploration license application by contacting San Juan Coal Company, 
at the address shown below, or the Bureau of Land Management, New 
Mexico State Office, Solid Minerals Adjudication, P.O. Box 27115, 
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502-0115.

    Any parties electing to participate in this exploration program 
shall notify in writing, both the State Director, Bureau of Land 
Management, New Mexico State Office, P.O. Box 27115, Santa Fe, New 
Mexico 87502-0115, and the San Juan Coal Company, P.O. Box 561, 
Waterflow, NM 87421. Such written notice must include a justification 
for wanting to participate and any recommended changes in the 
exploration plan with specific reasons for such changes. The notice 
must be received no later than 30-calendar days after the publication 
of this notice in the Federal Register.
    This proposed exploration program is for the purpose of determining 
the quality and quantity of the coal in the area and will be conducted 
pursuant to an exploration plan to be approved by the Bureau of Land 
Management. A copy of the exploration plan as submitted by San Juan 
Coal Company may be examined at the Bureau of Land Management, New 
Mexico State Office,

[[Page 50621]]

1474 Rodeo Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502, and the Farmington 
District Office, 1235 La Plata Highway, Farmington, New Mexico 87401-
1808.

    Dated: September 15, 1997.
Gilbert J. Lucero,
State Director.
[FR Doc. 97-25524 Filed 9-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-FB-M
**Exhibit 10.21(b)**

**AMENDMENT TO GUARANTY AGREEMENT**

THIS AMENDMENT TO GUARANTY AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”),is dated for reference purposes July 12, 2007, and is by and between TOM T. O’KEEFE (“Guarantor”), and BENAROYA CAPITAL COMPANY, L.L.C., a Washington limited liability company (“Lender”). 

**WITNESSETH:**

A. Tully’sCoffee Corporation, a Washington corporation (“Borrower”), has obtained a loan in the principal amount of Four Million and 00/100 Dollars ($4,000,000.00) (the “Loan”) from Lender. 

B. Guarantor has executed that certain Guaranty Agreement dated April 25, 2007 (the “Guaranty”). All words defined in the Guaranty thatbegin with a capital letter in this Amendment shall have the same meaning in this Amendment as in the Guaranty. 

C. Borrower and Lenderhave agreed to increase the loan evidenced by the Note to up to $10,000,000.00, and to extend the “Maturity Date” (as defined in the Note) and Borrower and Lender have executed that certain Amendment to Secured Promissory Note and SecurityAgreement of even date herewith (the “Amendment to Note”). 

NOW, THEREFORE, to induce Lender to amend the Loan and inconsideration of the foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Lender and Guarantor hereby amends the Guaranty as follows: 

1. The amount of the Loan and the Note as set forth in the Guaranty are hereby amended to read Ten Million and 00/100 Dollars ($10,000,000.00). By hisexecution of this Amendment, Guarantor hereby (a) approves the increase in the amount of the Loan and the extension of the Maturity Date, (b) agrees that nothing contained in the Amendment to Note shall in any way terminate or amend hisguaranty, (c) subordinates his security interest in the Collateral (as defined in the Security Agreement) to the security interest of Holder which secures repayment of the Note, as amended by the Amendment to Note, and (d) agrees thatGuarantor is guaranteeing Maker’s repayment of the Note as increased by the Amendment to Note. 

2. Except as set forth in thisAmendment, the Guaranty shall remain in full force and effect as originally executed by Guarantor. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Guarantor has executed thisAmendment as of the day and year first above written.
#### SOUTHEAST TITLE AND INSURANCE CO. v. COLLINS.

No. 38924.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 226 So.2d 247.
### Geology and ground-water resources of the south-coast basins of Santa Barbara County, California

By: J. E. UpsonH. G. Thomasson Jr.

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1108

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 7**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 8**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 109 MM 2019 

v. 

DAVID DERRY, 

Respondent 

Petitioner 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 11th day of December, 2019, the "Motion to File Petition Nunc Pro 

Tunc," treated as a Petition for Leave to File Petition for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro 

Tunc, is GRANTED. Counsel is DIRECTED to file a Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

within 15 days.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Noah Lee BROCK v. Willie J. BLAIR, Sheriff of Washington Parish.

No. 61642.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 3, 1978.

In re: Noah Lee Brock applying for Writ of Mandamus. Washington Parish.

Writ denied.
#### Frank Louis RUSSELL, Appellant, v. ATLANTIC BAG AND PAPER COMPANY, a corporation, and Robert Lee Gaffney, Appellees.

No. L-162.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Aug. 7, 1969.

Searcy & Brown, for appellant.

Marks, Gray, Yates, Conroy & Gibbs, Jacksonville, for appellees.

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 appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed. See Garrison v. Hertz Corporation (Fla. App.1961), 129 So.2d 452; Bashaw v. Dyke (Fla.App.1960), 122 So.2d 507; Williams v. Hawkins (Fla.App.1966), 192 So.2d 326.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Case 05-01272-WWB Doc 11 Filed 10/11/05 Entered 10/11/05 16:25:17 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 1
MP

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0582

KIM NORQUAY, JR.,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, and

good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and

including January 23, 2023, within which to prepare, serve, and file its response 

brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 15 2022

12/15/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0582
## QOT DESIGNATED FOR r SUCATION COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA

RE: Docket Number 2022 - CU -0770 Robert James RaglandVersus - - Family Court of East Baton Rouge Katherine Diamond Ragland Case #: 209479 East Baton Rouge Parish



### On Application for Rehearing filed on 01/ 05/2023 By Katherine Diamond Ragland Rehearing 

# don r

# 6--,

LI ( M Guy Holdridge
#### Ex parte FLORENCE ENAMELING CO., INC.

77-619.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Aug. 25, 1978.

*568SHORES, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, JONES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          14,417
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,141
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,311
<INVENTORY>                                      6,247
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,197
<PP&E>                                         108,912
<DEPRECIATION>                                (16,429)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 291,010
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,863
<BONDS>                                        141,629
<COMMON>                                             1
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      74,322
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   291,010
<SALES>                                        183,326
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               183,326
<CGS>                                          126,739
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  126,739
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,290
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,846
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,735
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,111
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,111
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    8,111
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    8,111


</TABLE>
#### Johnny BLACKSHEAR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-380.

District Court of Apppeal of Florida, First District.

April 6, 1971.

Rehearing Denied April 21, 1971.

Louis O. Frost, Jr., Public Defender, and Gerald Sohn, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was tried by a jury, convicted for the offenses of possessing and selling narcotic drugs, and sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison. He seeks reversal of the judgment and sentence on the grounds that the court erred in several material respects.

By his first two points on appeal appellant contends that the evidence establishes as a matter of law the defense of entrapment and that the court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict and for an instruction to the jury on the law relating to such defense.

We have carefully reviewed the transcript of the trial proceedings and fail to find therein any evidence legally sufficient to establish the defense of entrapment. Disregarding the testimony of the State’s witnesses and considering only that adduced by the defendant, it cannot be said that it is reasonably susceptible of the conclusion that appellant was instigated, induced or lured into the commission of a crime which he had otherwise no *174intention of committing. It clearly appears without dispute that the informers acting on behalf of the State, to whom appellant admittedly sold the drugs in question, were acting in good faith for the purpose of detecting a crime and merely furnished the opportunity for its commission by appellant who already had the requisite criminal intent to violate the law. The State’s witnesses were not used as decoys to ensnare the innocent and lawLabiding appellant into the commission of the crime with which he was charged, but merely presented to him the opportunity of doing what he was already willing to do. Since such evidence negates the defense of entrapment, appellant was not entitled either to a directed verdict or a jury instruction on the law relating to such defense.1

We have carefully considered appellant’s remaining point on appeal but find it to be without substantial merit. The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed.

RAWLS, Acting C. J., and WIGGIN-TON, and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.

1

.Koptyra v. State (Fla.App.1965) 172 So.2d 628; Kibby v. United States (8th Cir. 1967) 372 F.2d 598, cert. den. 387 U.S. 931, 87 S.Ct. 2055, 18 L.Ed.2d 993.
Exhibit 99.2


      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 United Bancshares,  Inc. (the "Company")
on the Form 10-K for the  period  ending,  December  31,  2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Brenda
Hudson-Nelson,  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 to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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 operation of
          the Company.


/s/ Brenda Hudson-Nelson
--------------------------
Brenda Hudson-Nelson,
Chief Financial Officer,
March 31, 2003
#### Lester W. JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. ALTON BOX BOARD COMPANY, Respondent. Louis POWERS, Petitioner, v. ALTON BOX BOARD COMPANY, Respondent. Herman W. TURNER, Petitioner, v. ALTON BOX BOARD COMPANY, Respondent. Samuel JOHNSON and Elizabeth Johnson, Petitioners, v. ALTON BOX BOARD COMPANY, Respondent.

No. 41028.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 18, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 244 So.2d 769.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

BOYD, J., dissents.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Investigations ofchemosynthetic communities on the lower continental slope of the Gulf of Mexico[electronic resource].**
 
1|2|
 
SuDoc Number:I 72.12/2:2014-650/V.1;I 72.12/2:2014-651/V.2

Item Number: 0080-G (online)

CGP systemNumber:0671-F-07 (online)
August 20, 2018
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 187 (Friday, September 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50616-50617]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25660]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company that engages either 
directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking 
activity that is listed in Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) 
or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to 
banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise 
noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than October 14, 1997.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Richard Walker, Community 
Affairs Officer) 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02106-2204:
    1. Boston Private Bancorp, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts; to acquire 
Westfield Capital Management Company, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts, 
through a de novo subsidiary, and thereby engage in financial and 
investment advisory activities, pursuant to Sec.  225.28(b)(6) of the 
Board's Regulation Y.


[[Page 50617]]


    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 23, 
1997.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-25660 Filed 9-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1995              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1995              JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1995              DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      1,608,890                  741,820
<SECURITIES>                                  704,608                  528,416
<RECEIVABLES>                                 630,264                  860,785
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0                        0
<INVENTORY>                                   312,637                  285,447
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            3,277,638                2,453,605
<PP&E>                                        668,408                1,079,252
<DEPRECIATION>                              (149,426)                (292,455)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              3,976,170                3,464,484
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         482,747                  458,611
<BONDS>                                             0                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0                        0
<PREFERRED>                                         0                        0
<COMMON>                                       49,174                   50,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  3,444,249                2,949,176
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                3,976,170                3,464,484
<SALES>                                     3,956,349                4,959,002
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            3,956,349                4,959,002
<CGS>                                       1,975,301                2,608,221
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               1,975,301                2,608,221
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            2,076,469                3,217,291
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              248,326                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             34,336                (109,890)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (378,083)                (756,620)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (378,083)                (756,620)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             (114,842)                        0
<CHANGES>                                           0                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                (492,925)                (756,620)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.12)                   (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.12)                   (0.15)


</TABLE>
## NUMBER 13

- 1 6

- 00 248

- C V

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

BURLINGTON RESOURCES OIL

& GAS COMPANY, LP

, A ppellant,

v.

TEXAS CRUDE ENERGY, LLC

AND AMBER HARVEST, LLC

, A ppellee s

.

On a ppeal from the 156th District Court

of Live Oak County, Texas.



## ORDER

Before Justices Benavides, Perkes and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

Burlinton Resources Oil & Gas Company, LP filed a petition for permissive

interlocutory appeal on May 3, 2016. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28.3. The Court, having

examined and fully considered the petition, is of the opinion that the petition should be2

granted. Accordingly, we GRANT permission to appeal. A notice of appeal is deemed

to have been filed on this date. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28.3( k). The appeal will be

governed by the rules for accelerated appeals. Id.; see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28.1 (“The

deadlines and procedures for filing the record and briefs in an accelerated appeal are

provided in Rules 35.1 and 38.6.”).

We direct the Clerk of this C ourt to file a copy of this order with the trial court clerk.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28.3( k).

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed th e

11 th day of M ay , 2016

.