alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
June 25, 2004

                                  AMENDMENT TO
                              RESTATED AND AMENDED
                              LETTER LOAN AGREEMENT



The Beard Company
5600 N. May Avenue, Suite 320
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73112

Gentlemen:

On March 26, 2004 the parties  hereto entered into a Restated and Amended Letter
Loan  Agreement  (the  "March  26  Agreement")  which  superseded  the  previous
Supplemental Letter Loan Agreements between the parties.

Subsequent to the execution of the March 26 Agreement it was determined that the
actual  amount  of the Loan is  $2,785,000.00  and that  the  Borrower  has paid
$50,000.00  of the  accrued  interest  due  on the  Loan  to  the  date  hereof.
Accordingly, the parties have agreed that the March 26 Agreement be and the same
is  amended on the first  page  thereof  to  reflect  under Item 3 that the Loan
Amount is $2,785,000 and under Item 5 that the Indebtedness  plus unpaid accrued
interest  shall be due and payable on April 1, 2006.  The parties  have  further
agreed that a  Replacement  Renewal and  Extension  Promissory  Note dated as of
March 26, 2004 shall be issued to replace the original Note.

It is further  agreed  that Item 6 of the March 26  Agreement  is amended by (i)
changing the last sentence thereof to read as follows:  "Although the other Note
Holders have been repaid in full as of this date, the Lien has not been released
even though such Note Holders no longer have an interest  therein."  and (ii) by
adding the following  additional sentence thereto:  "Moreover,  on May 21, 2004,
Boatright Family LLC ("Boatright")  made a loan to the Lender, and a new Deed of
Trust,  Assignment of Production,  and Financing Statement is being prepared and
will be  placed of  record  which  will  place a new Lien on both  Lender's  and
Borrower's  Interests in the McElmo Dome Unit and determine the relative  rights
as to proceeds under the Deed of Trust as between the Lender and Boatright."

All other terms and conditions of the March 26 Agreement shall remain the same.

If the foregoing terms and conditions are acceptable to you, please  acknowledge
your agreement by signing below and returning one copy of this Amendment to us.

Sincerely,

LENDER:
THE WILLIAM M. BEARD AND LU BEARD
1988 CHARITABLE UNITRUST

/s/William M. Beard                         /s/Lu Beard
----------------------------                -------------------------
William M. Beard, Trustee                   Lu Beard, Trustee


Accepted on June 25, 2004, but effective as of March 26, 2004.

BORROWER:
THE BEARD COMPANY

/s/Herb Mee, Jr.
---------------------------
Herb Mee, Jr., President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This restated data schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from Boise Cascade Office Products Corporation's Balance Sheet at March 31,
1996, and from its Statement of Income for the three months ended March 31,
1996.  The information presented is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                          13,138
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  232,325
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,123
<INVENTORY>                                    130,030
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               397,867
<PP&E>                                         193,387
<DEPRECIATION>                                  79,814
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 723,396
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          170,600
<BONDS>                                        110,143
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           623
<OTHER-SE>                                     354,730
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   723,396
<SALES>                                        461,423
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               461,423
<CGS>                                          338,526
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  433,855
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     7
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,289
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,327
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,764
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,563
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,563
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25


</TABLE>
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 406

Providing for the concurrence by the House with amendments in amendment

of the Senate to H.R. 821.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 18, 1994

Mr. MONTGOMERY (for himself, Mr. BONILLA, and Mr. SANGMEISTER) submitted the following resolution; which was considered under the suspension of the rules and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Providing for the concurrence by the House with

amendments in amendment of the Senate to H.R. 821.

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution

2 the bill (H.R. 821), to amend title 38, United States Code,

3 to extend eligibility for burial in national cemeteries to

4 persons who have 20 years of service creditable for retired

5 pay as members of a reserve component of the Armed

6 Forces, with the Senate amendment thereto, shall be con7 sidered to have been taken from the Speaker’s table to

8 the end that the Senate amendment thereto be, and the

9 same is hereby, agreed to with amendments as follows:
2

•HRES 406 ATH

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the

amendment of the Senate to the text of the bill, insert

the following:

1 SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY OF CERTAIN RESERVISTS AND DE2 PENDENTS FOR BURIAL IN NATIONAL CEME3 TERIES.

4 (a) RESERVISTS.—Section 2402 of title 38, United

5 States Code, is amended by inserting after paragraph (6)

6 the following new paragraph (7):

7 ‘‘(7) Any person who at the time of death was

8 entitled to retired pay under chapter 67 of title 10

9 or would have been entitled to retired pay under

10 that chapter but for the fact that the person was

11 under 60 years of age.’’.

12 (b) DEPENDENTS.—Paragraph (5) of such section is

13 amended by inserting ‘‘and paragraph (7)’’ after ‘‘para14 graphs (1) through (4)’’.

Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘An Act to amend

title 38, United States Code, to extend eligibility for burial in national cemeteries to persons who have 20 years

of service creditable for retired pay as members of a reserve component of the Armed Forces and to their

dependents.’’.

Æ
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. David M. DUNCAN, Relator, v. Hon. W. Rogers TURNER, as Judge of the Criminal Court of Record, In and for Orange County, Florida, Division B, Respondent.

No. 70-520.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 25, 1970.

Prohibition denied.
# Panasonic

June 21, 2013 Panasonic Appliances Refrigeration Systems Corporation of America 2001 Sanyo Avenue, San Diego, CA 92154-6229 U.S.A.



### RE: Petition for Waiver and Application for Interim Waiver by Panasonic Appliances Refrigeration Systems Corporation of

### America

To Whom It May Concern : Consistent with 10 CFR 430. 27 (c)(1), I hereby certify that Panasonic Appliances Refrigeration Systems Corporation Systems ofAmerica has mailed notice of Petition for Waiver to the following parties:

AGA Marvel Avanti Products Attn: Legal Department Attn : Legal Department 1260 EVan Deinse St 10880 NW 30th Street Greenville, MI 48838 Miami, FL 33172 Frigidaire Danby Products Inc. Attn: Legal Department Attn: Legal Department PO Box 212378 P.O. Box 669 Augusta, GA 30907 Findlay, OH 45840 Electrolux Major Appliances, North America Fisher & Paykel Appliances Inc. Attn: Legal Department Attn: Legal Department PO Box 212237 5900 Skylab Road Augusta, GA 30907 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 General Electric Gorenje Gospodinjski Attn: Legal Department Attn : Legal Department Appliance Park, AP2
-22 Gorenje d.d. Louisville, KY 40225 Partizanska 12 3320 Velenje SLOVENIA Guangzhou Wanbao Refrigerator Co., Ltd. HaierAmerica Trading, LLC Attn: Legal Department Attn: Legal Department No.111 Jiangnan Mid Avenue 1356 Broadway Guangzhou 510220 New York, NY 10018 CHINA Hefei Hualing Co., Ltd. Intirion Corporation Attn: Legal Department Attn: Legal Department 176 Jinxiu Road 2 Annette Road, Suite 3 Hefei, 230601 Foxboro, MA 02035 CHINA LG Electronics, Inc. Liebherr-Canada Ltd., Attn: Legal Department Refrigerators and Freezers Division 1776 K Street, NW Attn: Legal Department Washington DC 20006 1015 Sutton Drive Burlington, ON L7L 5Z8 CANADA Scotsman Ice Systems Sub
-Zero, Inc. Attn: Legal Department Attn: Legal Department 775 Corporate Woods Parkway 4717 Hammersley Road Vernon Hills, IL 60061 Madison, WI 53711

# Panasonic

Sunpentown International, Inc. True Foodservice Equipment, Inc

. Attn: Legal Department Attn: Legal Department 14625 Clark Ave. 2001 East Terra Lane City of Industry CA 91745 O'Fallon, MO 63366 U
-Line Corporation Whirlpool Corporation Attn: Legal Department Attn : Legal Department P

.O. Box 245040 2000 N. M
-63 Milwaukee , WI 53224
-9540 Benton Harbor, MI 49022-2692 Zhejiang Xingxing Home Appliance Co., Ltd. BSH Home Appliances Corporation Attn: Legal Department Attn: Legal Department No.88, Shangjinxian Road 100 Bosch Blvd. Hongjia, Taizhou, Zhejiang New Bern, NC 28562 CHINA



### Respectfully yours,

Paul Griffin Director, Business Planning Panasonic Appliances Refrigeration Systems Corporation of America



### 2
#### Ann B. BEAUCHAMP, formerly Ann P. Bassett, Appellant, v. E. Pope BASSETT, Appellee.

No. 71-747.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 1, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Seminole County; Richard B. Muldrew, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### HENRY S. McCOMBS *vs.*SAMUEL G. CHANDLER, Sheriff.

A new trial will not be granted for after discovered testimony, which by due diligence might have been discovered before the trial.

Such evidence must be shown to be important, and must, therefore be disclosed.

A juror will not be allowed to deny the fact of his having agreed to a verdict rendered.

Replevin. Trial and verdict for plaintiff, on a plea of property in defendant, and property in A. C. Walker.

Motion for a rule to show cause why a new trial should not be had, on the following grounds, supported by affidavits :—1. The jurors did not agree on a verdict. 2. The discovery of important testimony since the trial.

The defendant presented an affidavit of one of the jurors, the foreman, that he did not agree to the verdict, and did not answer when polled. Also, the affidavit of Bradley, the defendant in interest, that he had discovered important testimony, namely, a receipt of H. S. McCombs, to A. C. Walker; and the affidavit of the same person, that he had discovered, since the trial; other important testimony, without specifying it.

He also offered the affidavit of Mr. Wolfe, one of the counsel, that he had never heard of the receipt until after the verdict.

Messrs. *Rogers*and *Patterson*

objected to the affidavit of the juror ; and to the affidavit of counsel; to the relevancy of the receipt; to the sufficiency of Bradley’s affidavits ; that they pointed to A. C. Walker, as the person from whom they had acquired the knowledge of the evidence, and he, having been examined as a witness, the party was bound .to have put questions to him which would have brought out the evidence. The after discovery of testimony is not in' itself sufficient for a new trial, but it must be shown not to have been in the *poioer*of the party to discover it; and the affidavits *424of after discovered testimony were not made by a party in the cause ; Bradley’s interest not being shown.

*Wolfe*and *Wales,*for plaintiff.

*Moyers*and *Patterson,*for defendant.

Messrs. *Wolfe and Wales*

contended:—That the affidavit of a juror was competent, ás to a fact not occurring in the jury room, but in public; not relating to the framing of a verdict, but to the fact of rendering a verdict; because, after consenting to. a verdict in the jury room, jt is competent for any juror to refuse to answer affirmatively to that verdict when polled: that in regard to the affidavit of after discovered testimony, it could not come from the nominal defendant, the late sheriff, who had no concern with the case, but might be made by *any*person who could lay a probable ground to suppose that the real defendant did not know of the evidence.

*The Court*

refused the rule. They would not alow a juror to. deny his verdict rendered in court in such way as to imply his assent, even if it was not 'expressed, as the record says it was. It was the duty of the juror to express his dissent to the verdict, if he-did not agree to it.

In regard to after discovered evidence, it must be shown to be not only important, but that it was not in the party’s power to have discovered it, by reasonable diligence, before the trial.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-25-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-25-1998
<CASH>                                              65
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       60
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        879
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,018
<PP&E>                                             655
<DEPRECIATION>                                     282
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,535
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              881
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         598
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,535
<SALES>                                          2,266
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,266
<CGS>                                            1,634
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,634
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   7
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    131
<INCOME-TAX>                                        51
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 80
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        80
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.98
        

</TABLE>
# Official Journal C 83/2015

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 83 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5811 March 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 83

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5811 March 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 083/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7490 — Macquarie/Wren House/E.On Spain) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2015/C 083/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7490 — Macquarie/Wren House/E.On Spain) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 083/02 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |
| 2015/C 083/03 | Commission Decision of 10 March 2015 designating the sites awarded the European Heritage Label in 2014 | 3 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2015/C 083/02

Euro exchange rates

2

2015/C 083/03

Commission Decision of 10 March 2015 designating the sites awarded the European Heritage Label in 2014

3

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 083/04 | Notice of initiation of an anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron), originating in India | 4 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 083/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7517 — Hebei Iron & Steel Group/DPH/Duferco International Trading Holding) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 15 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY

European Commission

2015/C 083/04

Notice of initiation of an anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron), originating in India

4

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2015/C 083/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7517 — Hebei Iron & Steel Group/DPH/Duferco International Trading Holding) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

15

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### FIRST REALTY CORPORATION OF CAPE CORAL, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. SHOREHAVEN OF LEE COUNTY, INC., a Connecticut corporation, Appellee.

No. 70-655.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. *4,*1971.

Appeal dismissed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-15-00102-CV

Cathy GIDDINGS,

Appellant

v.

Ralph CURTIS, M.D.,

Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-CI-06825

Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED. Costs of this appeal are taxed against Appellant Cathy Giddings.

SIGNED November 10, 2015.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 I, Gregory P. Josefowicz, certify that the Form 10-K for the year ended January
25, 2004, of Borders Group, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)) and that the information contained in the periodic report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Borders Group, Inc. Date: March 25, 2004 /s/ GREGORY P. JOSEFOWICZ

Gregory P. Josefowicz
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Borders Group, Inc. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Borders Group, Inc. and will be retained by Borders Group, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### I. V. DAVENPORT et al. v. LOKET SANDERS PAPER CO. et al.

No. 54385.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 1, 1974.

In re: Loket Sanders Paper Company applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo. 287 So.2d 601.

Writ denied. On the facts found, there is no error of law in the court of appeal judgment. '
#### STATE of Louisiana, Through the DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS v. Joseph E. RHODES, Jr., et al.

No. 53927.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 14, 1973.

In re: State of Louisiana, through the Department of Highways, applying for Stay Order.

Application denied. There is nothing presented for review.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 302 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 302

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     November 10, 1993.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 1025) to provide for a waiting period before the purchase of a 
handgun, and for the establishment of a national instant criminal background 
check system to be contacted by firearms dealers before the transfer of any 
firearm. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
confined to the bill and the amendments made in order by this resolution and 
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate 
the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under 
the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, modified by the 
amendment printed in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
this resolution. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
modified, shall be considered as read. All points of order against the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, are waived. No amendment 
to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, shall be 
in order except those printed in part 2 of the report of the Committee on Rules. 
Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, 
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, 
and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the amendment 
numbered 3 in part 2 of the report are waived. At the conclusion of 
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of 
the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
order as original text. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```