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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         410,005
<SECURITIES>                                     7,321
<RECEIVABLES>                                  634,503
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    240,091
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,305,054
<PP&E>                                      20,584,311
<DEPRECIATION>                            (14,878,414)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,155,954
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          936,642
<BONDS>                                        927,297
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,607
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,016,808
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,155,954
<SALES>                                      1,019,355
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,030,450
<CGS>                                          516,559
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  802,734
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,728
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                200,988
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            183,488
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   183,488
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05
        

</TABLE>
#### SARAH KING, Administratrix of CHARLES KING *vs.*FRETWELL WRIGHT, Administrator of ANDERSON HUDSON, deceased.

A certiorari is a writ of error, and cannot Re brought after *five*years from, the date of the judgment.

Certiorari to Justice Harris.

Record. Hudson *vs.*Corsey and King. Summons case on a note for $44 30, costs. 50. Judgment entered for plaintiff for the above debt and cost, December lith, 1823.

It was excepted:

That it did not appear that any summons was ever issued, or served or returned, or that the defendants below had any notice of the case.

To which the length of time was replied, and that the summons was lost.

*Cullen,*for plaintiff.

*Ridgely,*for defendant.

*The Court*

dismissed the certiorari, on the ground that it was barred by the lapse of time; thereby deciding that there is a limitation to the suing out writs of certiorari, and that such limitation is *five*years. A certiorari is a writ of error, and the constitution *Art. 6¡ sec.*20, provides that no writ of error shall be brqught upon any judgment but within five years after the rendering the same; unless the person entitled to such writ shall be an infant, &c.

Certiorari dismissed.
No. 00-993.

#### Butler *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
# Official Journal C 16/2022

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 16 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6513 January 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 16

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6513 January 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2022/C 16/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10471 – SUEZ / SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC / JV) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2022/C 16/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10471 – SUEZ / SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC / JV) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA |
| | EFTA Surveillance Authority |
| 2022/C 16/02 | State aid – Decision to raise no objections | 2 |
| 2022/C 16/03 | State aid – Decision to raise no objections | 4 |
| 2022/C 16/04 | State aid – Decision to raise no objections | 5 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA

EFTA Surveillance Authority

2022/C 16/02

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

2

2022/C 16/03

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

4

2022/C 16/04

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

5

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2022/C 16/05 | Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures | 6 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2022/C 16/06 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10547 – Voith/Voith Hydro) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 7 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY

European Commission

2022/C 16/05

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

6

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2022/C 16/06

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10547 – Voith/Voith Hydro) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

7

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

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

EN
#### NORTH AMERICAN ROCKWELL CORPORATION and American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Charles Samuel MOYER, an incompetent, by and through William Trickel, Jr., and Eaton, Yale and Towne, Inc., a foreign corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 71-168.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 1, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Roger A. Barker, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
|EXHIBIT 10.2                                                                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE
TO THE
CHANGE OF CONTROL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION 
AND 
DONALD L. GLASS, DATED MARCH 15, 1999

|WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Georgia-Pacific Corporation (the "Board") desires to amend the Change of Control Agreement between Georgia-Pacific Corporation and Donald L. Glass, dated March 15, 1999 ("Agreement") to expand the definition of "Change
of Control".
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|NOW THEREFORE, the Board hereby amends the Agreement as follows:                                                                                                                                                                                                          
|1.    Section 1(c) of the Agreement is amended by adding the following to the end thereof:                                                                                                                                                                                

| | "(v)    Consummation of the Transaction as defined in the Board Resolution approving Project Forest dated July 18, 2000 and as contemplated in the Agreement and Plan of Merger by and among Plum Creek Timber Company, Inc., Georgia-Pacific
Corporation, and the Spincos (as defined therein) dated July 18, 2000."
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR E N B ANC R ECONSIDERATION

Appellate case name: Melissa Ford Bierwirth v. AH4R I TX, LLC

Appellate case number: 01

- 13

- 00 459

- CV

Trial court case number: 1027657

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 2 of Harris County

It is ordered that Appell ant ’ s Motion for En Banc Reconsideration is denied

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

Acting for the En Banc Court*

Date: December 1 8 , 2014

*En banc court consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings, Keyes, Higley, Bland,

Sharp, Massengale, Brown, and Huddle

.
# C_2020433EN.01006002.xml

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/60

---

Action brought on 5 October 2020 — Les Mousquetaires and ITM Entreprises v Commission

(Case T-625/20)

(2020/C 433/75)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Les Mousquetaires (Paris, France), ITM Entreprises (Paris) (represented by: N. Jalabert-Doury and K. Mebarek, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision dated 23 July 2020 relating to a proceeding under Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case AT.40466 — Alliance Casino and Intermarché); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision dated 23 July 2020 relating to a proceeding under Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case AT.40466 — Alliance Casino and Intermarché);

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the entirety of the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the entirety of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to an effective remedy, of Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 and 102 TFEU] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) and a lack of legal basis, in that the contested decision requires the applicants to identify meetings and to resubmit documents already dealt with by the Commission and since invalidated by the General Court of the European Union.

---
No. 10824.

#### Arbogast, Treasurer of Clark County *v.*Whiteley.

Decided October 6, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Clark county.

*Mr. Lazvrence E. Laybourne,*prosecuting attorney; *Mr. John B. McGrazu; Mr. Wade H. Ellis,*attorney general, and *Mr. Smith W. Bennett,*for plaintiff ■n error.

*Mr. George S. Dial*and *Messrs. Martin & Martin,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998 
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998 
<CASH>                                         465,506 
<SECURITIES>                                         0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                  612,975 
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0 
<INVENTORY>                                    139,779 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                80,124 
<PP&E>                                       2,180,183
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,102,695 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,392,621 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,511,519 
<BONDS>                                              0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                          0 
<COMMON>                                         3,324 
<OTHER-SE>                                     739,481 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,392,621 
<SALES>                                      4,089,050 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,089,050 
<CGS>                                        2,065,604 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,593,368 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,260 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              43,897 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (525,578)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (525,578)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0 
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                  (525,578)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.16)
                                           

</TABLE>
EX-10.35.1





 Exhibit 10.35.1 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO MASTER REPURCHASE AGREEMENT 

Dated as of October 17, 2016 

Between: 
 LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC, as Seller 

and 
 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Buyer 

The Parties have agreed to amend the Master Repurchase Agreement dated June 3, 2016 between them (the “Original MRA” and
as amended hereby and as further supplemented, amended or restated from time to time (the “MRA”)), to make one revision to the definition of “Eligible Mortgage Loan”, and they hereby amend the Original MRA as follows. 

All capitalized terms used in the Original MRA and used, but not defined differently, in this amendment (the “First Amendment to
MRA”) have the same meanings here as there. 
 2. Definitions; Interpretation 

(a) Definitions 
 Clause
(x)(A) of the definition of “Eligible Mortgage Loan” is amended to read as follows: 
 (A) if requested by
Buyer, on or before its Purchase Date, a written fraud detection report reasonably acceptable to Buyer has been delivered to Buyer or (if Seller has paid the Fraud Detection Fee set forth in the Side Letter) has been obtained by Buyer; 

As amended hereby, the Original MRA remains in full force and effect, and the Parties hereby ratify and confirm it. 

 

			
	JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Lee Chung

		 	Lee Chung
		 	Authorized Officer
	
	LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Bryan Sullivan

		 	Bryan Sullivan
		 	Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
condensed consolidated balance sheet of Global Marine Inc. and subsidiaries
as of 9-30-99 and the related condensed consolidated statement of operations
for the nine months ended 9-30-99, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          35,100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  111,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,800
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               173,900
<PP&E>                                       2,192,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 457,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,090,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          113,400
<BONDS>                                        595,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,400
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,108,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,090,000
<SALES>                                          5,100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               592,300
<CGS>                                            4,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  450,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                103,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    24,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             78,800
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    78,800
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.45






</TABLE>
|    |
|----|
|    |  |  |
| 1. |   | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Darden Restaurants, Inc.; |
| 2. |   | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |

|                                       |
|---------------------------------------|
|                                       |
| /s/ Eugene I. Lee, Jr.                |
| Eugene I. Lee, Jr.                    |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
| July 26, 2017                         |
#### Sidney J. GAUTREAUX, Jr. v. CITY OF BAKER, La.

No. 53178.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 1, 1973.

In re: City of Baker, Louisiana applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 270 So.2d 221.

Writ denied. No error of law.
#### John J. Waters, Respondent, *v.*Minnie Lang and Barney Waller, Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,.First Department,

February, 1913.)

Conversion—pleading—counterclaim — indebtedness of plaintiff to defendant.

In an action for the conversion of two horses which defendant had sold for $300, defendant, claiming that plaintiff was indebted to her in the sum of $375, counterclaimed for $75. The trial court while submitting to the jury the issue as to the value of the horses failed to submit the issue raised by defendant’s counterclaim. Held, reversing a judgment in plaintiff’s favor for $475, that defendant should have been permitted to show that plaintiff was indebted to her in the amount alleged.

The fact that defendant had not complied with the Lien Law in selling the horses did not preclude proof of the original counterclaim which arose out of the contract under which the horses were delivered and was connected with the subject of fhe action.

Appeal by the defendants from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan, third district, rendered in favor of the plaintiff.

Bernard Drachenberg (Arthur G. Fuchs, of counsel), for appellants.

Wing & Wing (Theodore H. Lord, of counsel), for respondent.

Seabury, J.

The plaintiff sues to recover for the alleged conversion of two horses. The defendant Lang claimed that the plaintiff was indebted to her in the sum of'$375, and that she had sold the horses for $300, and interposed a counterclaim for $75. The court below failed to submit to the jury the issue raised by the,counterclaim, and submitted to the jury the issue as to the value of the horses, which the defendant Lang was alleged to have converted. The action resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff for ,$475 and costs. We think this result is unjust to the defendants, and that *241the defendant Lang should have been given an opportunity to prove that the plaintiff was indebted to her in the sum of $375. If she should succeed in establishing this claim, then it is clear that the $375 should have been deducted by the jury from the sum which they found to represent the value of the horses converted. The fact that the defendant did not comply with the Lien Law in selling the horses, did not preclude her from proving a counterclaim which alleged that originally $375 was due her from the plaintiff and allowing the plaintiff credit for the $300 which was realized from the sale of the horses. The claim alleged by the defendant arose' out of the contract under which the horses were delivered, and was connected with the subject of the action. Code Civ. Pro., § 501; Carpenter v. Manhattan Life Insurance Co., 93 N. Y. 552; O’Brien v. Dwyer, 76 App. Div. 516.

It follows that it was error to dismiss the counterclaim, and that the judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event.

Lehman and Page, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with cost to appellants to abide event.
#### Merrill Lynch Business Financial Systems, Inc., et al., Respondents, v Frank Schambra, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[655 NYS2d 82]

In an action to reforeclose a mortgage pursuant to RPAPL 1503, the defendant Frank Schambra appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered April 27, 1995, which, upon granting the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, *inter alia,*failed to direct an accounting of the rents and profits collected subsequent to the foreclosure sale and the value of use and occupancy for purposes of calculating the redemption price.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by adding thereto a provision directing the plaintiffs to furnish an accounting of the rents and profits collected subsequent to the foreclosure sale and directing the Referee to calculate the redemption price including any rents and profits or the value of the plaintiffs’ use and occupancy of the property; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In this reforeclosure action to extinguish the lien of the appellant Frank Schambra *(see,*RPAPL 1503), the Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and gave the appellant 60 days to redeem the property. The appellant challenges only the method by which the court directed the Referee to calculate the redemption price. Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the court properly directed that the redémption price include the value of any improvement to the property made subsequent to the original foreclosure sale *(see,*RPAPL 1523 [3]). However, under the circumstances of this case, the court should have also directed that the redemption price be reduced by the amount of rents and profits received by the plaintiffs or the value of the plaintiffs’ use and occupancy during the period subsequent to the original foreclosure sale *(see,*RPAPL 1522). The judgment is modified accordingly.

*419Since the plaintiffs have not cross-appealed from the judgment, their contention that the appellant’s lien was null and void *ab initio*is not properly before this Court. Friedmann, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.
# all_lease06012018
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Moses Mitchum, Appellant.

[655 NYS2d 383]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Murphy, J.), rendered November 6, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that his plea of guilty was not voluntarily entered is not preserved for appellate review *(see, People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *cf., People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 666), and, in any event, is without merit *(People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9).

As part of his plea bargain, the defendant effectively waived appellate review of the remaining issue raised by him *(People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1). Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.