alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                          5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS,  STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS,  STATEMENT OF
STOCKHOLDERS'  DEFICIENCY  AND  STATEMENT  OF CASH  FLOWS  FROM FORM 10Q FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED MARCH 28, 1998
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JAN-2-1999
<PERIOD-START>                           DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                             MAR-28-1998
<CASH>                                         1,373
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 75,806
<ALLOWANCES>                                   4,442
<INVENTORY>                                   58,760
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             138,837
<PP&E>                                        36,440
<DEPRECIATION>                                14,425
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               279,294
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        115,133
<BONDS>                                      155,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (3,362)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 279,294
<SALES>                                      279,720
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             281,556
<CGS>                                        252,804
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                276,274
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 276
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 375
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             4,776
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  230
<INCOME-TAX>                                     310
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (80)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (201)
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (281)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0
        


</TABLE>
10.7 - Term Note United






TERM NOTE
	
		
	$3,333,333.33
	February 27, 2014






FOR VALUE RECEIVED, HIGHWATER ETHANOL, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the “Borrower”), hereby promises to pay to the order of United Farm Credit Services, PCA (the “Bank”), the principal sum of $3,333,333.33.  The Borrower further agrees to pay interest in like money to the Bank on the unpaid principal amount hereof from time to time outstanding at the rates and on the dates specified in the Credit Agreement (as defined below), subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Credit Agreement; all such payments, unless sooner paid, shall be made no later than the Maturity Date.  All capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Credit Agreement.


This Term Note is one of the Term Notes evidencing the Term Loan referred to in that certain Credit Agreement of even date herewith, among the Borrower, the Bank and the other commercial, banking or financial institutions from time to time parties thereto, and AgStar Financial Services, PCA, as Administrative Agent (the “Agent”) (such agreement, as it may be amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Credit Agreement”).    


This Term Note is subject to prepayment as provided in the Credit Agreement.


This Term Note is secured as provided in the Loan Documents.  Reference is hereby made to the Loan Documents for a description of the properties and assets in which a mortgage, security interest or other lien has been granted, the nature and extent of the security, and the terms and conditions upon which such mortgages, liens and security interests were granted and the rights of the Bank in respect thereof.  


Upon the occurrence and during the continuance of any one or more of the Events of Default set forth in Section 6.01 of the Credit Agreement, all amounts then remaining unpaid on this Term Note shall, at the election of the Agent, be immediately due and payable, all as provided in the Credit Agreement.


The Borrower hereby waives demand, presentment, protest and notice of nonpayment and dishonor of this Term Note.


This Term Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota (without reference to the choice of law principles thereof).


The Borrower hereby submits to the jurisdiction of any Minnesota State court sitting in Blue Earth County, Minnesota, or Federal court sitting in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in any action or proceeding arising out of or relating to this Term Note, and the Borrower hereby agrees that claims in respect of such action or proceeding may be heard and determined in such Minnesota State court or in such Federal court.  The Borrower hereby waives, to the fullest extent it may effectively do so, the defense of an inconvenient forum to the maintenance of such action or proceeding.


	
		
	 
	HIGHWATER ETHANOL, LLC, a Minnesota

	 
	limited liability company

	 
	 

	 
	/s/ Brian Kletscher

	 
	By: Brian Kletscher

	 
	Its: Chief Executive Officer
|                                                         |
|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                         |  |  |
| Name                                                    |   | Jurisdiction of Incorporation |
| Blue Tongue Entertainment Pty. Ltd.                | Australia |
| Locomotive Games, Inc.                             | California |
| THQ Asia Pacific Pty. Ltd.                         | Australia |
| THQ Canada Inc. dba Relic Entertainment            | British Columbia |
| THQ Digital Studios Phoenix, Inc.                  | Arizona |
| THQ Digital Studios UK Limited                          | United Kingdom |
| THQ Entertainment GmbH                             | Germany |
| THQ France S.a.r.l.                                     | France |
| T.HQ (Holdings) Limited                                 | United Kingdom |
| THQ Interactive Entertainment Espana, S.L.U.            | Spain |
| THQ International GmbH                             | Switzerland |
| THQ Italy S.r.l.                                   | Italy |
| THQ Japan K.K.                                          | Japan |
| THQ Korea Ltd.                                     | Korea |
| THQ Maryland, Inc.                                 | Delaware |
| THQ Montreal Inc.                                  | Montreal, Quebec |
| THQ Software Development (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. | China |
| THQ Studio Australia Pty. Ltd.                     | Australia |
| THQ (UK) Limited                                        | United Kingdom |
| THQ Wireless Inc.                                  | Delaware |
| Vigil Games, Inc.                                  | Texas |
| Volition, Inc.                                     | Delaware |
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should

not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth

in Local Rule 47.5.4.

1Redesignated § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) by § 804 of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No.

104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 96-40393

_____________________

GERALD A. REESE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MARY CHOATE, Sheriff, Bowie County

Sheriff's Dept., in her personal and

individual capacity; ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:95-CV-101

_________________________________________________________________

October 23, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DAVIS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gerald Reese, a Texas prisoner, appeals the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)1 dismissal of his
2Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1123

(1994).

3Lewis v. Casey, 116 S.Ct. 2174 (1996).

2

civil rights complaint complaining of (1) denial of accessto the courts, and (2) placement

in administrative segregation in violation of the due process and cruel and unusual

punishment clauses. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the complaint as

frivolous in a report sent to Reese on March 12, 1996. Reese was required to file

objections to the report on or before March 26, 1996. No objections were filed and on

March 27, 1996, the district court issued its judgment of dismissal.

On April 1, 1996 Reese filed a motion for continuance of the time for objecting to

the magistrate judge's report. There was no allegation that the report was received late

or that the factual findings were in error. Reese complains only of an incorrect

application of the law.

The claim of denial of access to the courts was based on the allegations of

inordinate delay and “fastshuffle” treatment accordedinthe delivery ofthree legaltexts

Reese acquired from West Publishing Company. If the alleged allegations occurred, a

situation is presented in which prison authorities could take no pride, but such

allegations do not rise to the level of a constitutional denial of access to the courts.2 A

prisoner mustshowactual legal injury to prevail on an access-to-the-court claim.3 Reese

makes no such allegations.

The claims of due process and cruel and unusual punishment clause violations are
4See Whittington v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 818 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 840

(1988).

3

equally unavailing. Reese contends that the complaint of administrative segregation

results from the effort by prison authorities to retaliate against him because of the suits

he hadfiledagainst authorities and his complaints about the performance oftheir duties.

These allegations were deemed conclusory and frivolous by the district court. We

agree.4

AFFIRMED.
No. 10549.

#### The Union National Bank of Kansas City, Mo., *v.*Carver et al.

Decided March 17, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

*Mr. C. C. Wise,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Olds & Willet*and *Mr. George S. Cole,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed on authority of *Orlopp*v. *Schueller, Admr.,*72 Ohio St., 41.

Shauck, C. J., Price, Crew, Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheet of CNL Fund IX, Ltd. at December 31, 1996, and its statement
of income for the year then ended and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to the Form 10-K405 of CNL Income Fund IX, Ltd. for the year
ended December 31, 1996.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,288,618
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  104,239
<ALLOWANCES>                                    28,983
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      16,043,836
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,246,287
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              31,343,847
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  30,359,596
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                31,343,847
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,943,666
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  443,767
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,960,299
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,960,299
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,960,299
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Due to the nature of its industry, CNL Income Fund IX, Ltd. has
an unclassified balance sheet; therefore, no values are shown above
for current assets and current liabilities.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Richard L. LONG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-114.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 18, 1970.

D. Turner Matthews, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and John A. Zebedee, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

PIERCE, Judge.

This is a companion case to Church v. State, Fla.App., 244 So.2d 506, this day decided by affirmance. Appellants Long and Church were together in the automobile that was searched and from which the incriminating articles were seized as depicted in the *Church*opinion. Although separate appeals were taken out by Church and Long, the appeals have been heretofore consolidated by this Court for purpose of appellate disposition.

The sole question in this appeal of Long, as it was in the appeal of Church, is the legality of the search of the car wherein Long and Church, together with three other Negroes, were riding just before their apprehension. The legality of the search was upheld in *Church,*and the case there affirmed. This case must follow a like course.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is—

Affirmed.

HOBSON, C. J., and MANN, J., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.01

                  CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER &
                            CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Michael Pacult, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
Ashley Capital Management, Inc. as General Partner of Atlas Futures Fund, LP,
certify that (i) the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 of Atlas
Futures Fund, LP fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information
contained in the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Atlas Futures Fund, LP.


ATLAS FUTURES FUND, LP
By:	Ashley Capital Management, Inc., General Partner



By:	/s/ Michael Pacult
 	Michael Pacult
 	Chief Executive Officer &
 	Chief Financial Officer


Date:	March 30, 2009

<page>
~ . 

F~~~S~~~~~~~~~~ OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

In the Matter of 

McWANE, INC., 

a corporation, and 

STAR PIPE PRODUCTS, LTD., 

a limited partnership, 

Respondents. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

------------------------------~) 

DOCKET NO. 9351 

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION OF 

STAR PIPE PRODUCTS, LTD. FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

On March 8, 2012, Star Pipe Products, Ltd. ("Star") filed an unopposed motion to extend 

the time for Star to move to limit or quash (1) the Subpoena Duces Tecum served on it on 

February 27,2012 by Respondent McWane, Inc. ("McWane"), and (2) the Subpoena Duces 

Tecum served on it on February 28,2012 by Complaint Counsel (collectively, the "Subpoenas"). 

In support of its motion, Star states that it is in the process of conferring with McWane 

and with Complaint Counsel about the Subpoenas, and that McWane and Complaint Counsel do 

not oppose an extension of time for Star to file a Motion to Limit or Quash the Subpoenas 

through March 16, 2012, while the parties negotiate in good faith the scope of the Subpoenas. 

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Unopposed Motion is GRANTED. It 

is hereby ORDERED that the deadline for Star to file any motion to limit or quash the 

Subpoenas shall be March 16,2012. 

ORDERED: 

Date: March 8, 2012 

03 08 2012
 03 08 2012
#### In the Matter of Ziana Patricia D., a Child Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Patrick D., Appellant; Lutheran Social Services of Metropolitan New York, Inc., Respondent.

[721 NYS2d 657]

—Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Marjory Fields, J.), entered on or about February 23, 1999, which, upon a fact-finding determination of permanent neglect against respondent father, terminated his parental rights with respect to the subject child and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purposes of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence that respondent, during the statutorily relevant time period, failed to maintain substantial contact with his daughter and failed to plan for her future, despite petitioner agency’s diligent efforts to assist him in meeting his *242parental obligations (Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]; *see, Matter of Star Leslie*W., 63 NY2d 136). The only plan offered by respondent for his daughter was for her to live with his mother. Respondent’s mother, however, refused to take the child and never contacted her *(see, Matter of Charles Frederick Eugene M.,*171 AD2d 343, 347, *appeal dismissed*79 NY2d 977). Family Court’s determination that freeing the child for adoption by the foster family with whom she has lived since infancy was in the child’s best interests is supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence *(see, Matter of Joseph Jerome H.,*224 AD2d 224). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Mazzarelli and Friedman, JJ.
#### Maurice KOPPEL, Appellant, v. Donald ALTMAN et al., Appellees.

No. 72-296.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 22, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

WELLNESS AND REHABILITATION

CENTER OF POMPANO P.A. 

A/A/O SANTIAGO CANARIO, 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D21-2073

LT Case No. 2014-SC-11215

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

 Appellee. 

________________________________/ 

Decision filed April 26, 2022 

Appeal from the County Court 

for Orange County, 

Elizabeth Starr, Judge. 

Robert Morris, of Eiffert & 

Associates, P.A., Orlando, for 

Appellant. 

Michael J. Neimand, House Counsel 

of United Automobile Insurance 

Company, Miami, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. 

EVANDER, WALLIS and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur.
#### Thomas KALIVAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. O-435.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 10, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 10.1(aq)**

 

**AMENDMENT NUMBER ELEVENTO THESAUER-DANFOSS EMPLOYEES’ SAVINGS PLAN(As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 1997)**

 

Byvirtue and in exercise of the amending power reserved to Sauer-Danfoss (US)Company (the “Company”) by Section 14.1 of the Sauer-Danfoss Employees’ SavingsPlan as amended and restated effective January 1, 1997 (the “Plan”) andpursuant to the authority delegated to the undersigned officer of the Companyby the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”), the Plan is herebyamended, effective as of January 1, 2004, as follows:

1.               The Plan is amended by deleting paragraph (b) of Section 5.2, inits entirety, and substituting the following new paragraph (b) as a partthereof:

“(b)                           Maximum Reduction.  The maximum reductionfor any Participant for any payroll period shall be one hundred percent (100%)of such Participant’s Compensation for such payroll period; notwithstanding theforegoing and notwithstanding any Participant Contribution elected by aParticipant under this Section 5.2, if a Participant has elected to defer apercentage of his or her Compensation such that contribution of the grossamount of the Compensation would leave insufficient funds to satisfy allrequired deductions against such Compensation (including, but not limited to,any pre-tax elective contributions or benefit contributions made by suchParticipant, wage assignments, wage garnishments, child support payments,levies, remittance of all applicable taxes to governmental authorities(collectively the “Deductions”)), then the applicable Participant Contributionamount shall be made net of the smallest amount of Deductions needed to satisfyall such payments which cannot be covered from the portion of Compensation notdeferred.”

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, the Companyhas authorized the execution on its behalf of this Amendment Number Eleven this31st day of December, 2004.

 

 
|   | Sauer-Danfoss  (U.S.) Company |
|--------|-------------------------------|
|   |                          |   |
|   | By:                           | /s/  JAMES T. REMUS |   |
|   |                          | James T. Remus |
|   |                          | Director — Global  Compensation and Benefits |

 

----
#### GORDON v. PEARSON.

No. 38067.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 215 So.2d 345.
#### Wallace PONDER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-171.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 8, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                    5
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                        JAN-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                          JUL-04-1998
<CASH>                                6,618,000
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                         21,449,000
<ALLOWANCES>                          367,000
<INVENTORY>                           11,042,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      41,613,000
<PP&E>                                55,849,000
<DEPRECIATION>                        38,101,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        62,255,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 16,310,000
<BONDS>                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                              841,000
<OTHER-SE>                            41,489,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          62,255,000
<SALES>                               62,423,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      62,423,000
<CGS>                                 46,317,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         46,317,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      10,208,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    64,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       5,834,000
<INCOME-TAX>                          2,040,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   3,794,000
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                          3,794,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                         0.45
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Theodore C. BARKER.

No. 61224.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 13, 1978.

In re: Theodore C. Barker, applying for remedial writs. Parish of Avoyelles.

Denied.

CALOGERO, J., is of the opinion the writ should be granted.