alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT NO. 99



Supplemental Segment Information



|In thousands                     | Three Months Ended
  October 31, | Six Months Ended
  October 31,
|-------------------------------- | -------------------------------- | ------------------------------
|Orders Received:                 | 2003                             | 2002                          
|Sign Making & Specialty Graphics | $  71,415                        | $  68,330                     
|Apparel & Flexible Materials     | 38,971                           | 37,016                        
|Ophthalmic Lens Processing       | 20,630                           | 21,747                        
|                                 | $131,016                         | $127,093                      
|                                 | ======                           | ======                        
|                                 | October 31,2003                  | April 30,2003                 
|Backlog:                         |                                  |                               
|Sign Making & Specialty Graphics | $      897                       | $ 249                         
|Apparel & Flexible Materials     | 28,512                           | 26,205                        
|Ophthalmic Lens Processing       | 2,593                            | 3,258                         
|                                 | $ 32,002                         | $29,712                       
|                                 | =====                            | =====
Document

Exhibit 10.31

THIRD AMENDMENT TO TRUST AGREEMENT
This THIRD AMENDMENT (the “Amendment”) to that certain TRUST AGREEMENT dated August 27, 1999 (as previously amended, the “Original Trust Agreement”), by and between Kaufman and Broad Home Corporation, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and now known as KB HOME (the “Company”), and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., a national banking association organized under the laws of the United States of America, and successor to Wachovia Bank, N.A. (the “Trustee”), is made by the Company as of January 1, 2021 (the “Effective Date”).  Any capitalized term not defined herein shall have the meaning given to it in the Original Trust Agreement, and all Section references shall be to those Sections in the Original Trust Agreement.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Company desires to enter into this Amendment to bring current the Plans to which the Trust Assets may be allocated and to extend the term of the Trust.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the Company and the Trustee hereby declare and agree as follows:
1.  Section 13.2. Section 13.2(a) shall be amended to the following: “(a) August 26, 2029.”
2.  Full Force and Effect.  Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, the Original Trust Agreement remains unaltered and in full force and effect. The parties acknowledge and agree that the Original Trust Agreement has remained in full force and effect since the date of the Original Trust Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed by the parties hereto as of the Effective Date.
						
	KB HOME
By:/s/ WILLIAM R. HOLLINGER        
William R. Hollinger
Its: Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
	Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee
By:/s/ ANDREW J. FRANK            
Andrew J. Frank
Its: Vice President
#### Texas Co. *v.*Smith County *et al.*

(Division B.

Dec. 3, 1934.)

[157 So. 876.

No. 31462.]

R. D. Cooper, of Meridian, for appellant.

*329J. D. Martin, of Raleigh, for appellees.

Griffith, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Appellant sued the county in the circuit court on an open account. Appellee county demurred on the ground, first, that the declaration shows on its face that the statute of limitations had run against the account.

In the equity courts the statute of limitations may be raised by demurrer when the facts justifying it distinctly appear on the face of the bill, but this must be done by special demurrer. In actions in the law courts, special demurrers are abolished by section 553, Code 1930. Consequently, the bar of the statute of limitations cannot be availed of by demurrer to a declaration. Raleigh Co. v. Fortenberry, 133 Miss. 467, 97 So. 722.

Another ground of demurrer taken by the county is that the declaration fails to show any sufficient presentation of the claim to the board of supervisors, and demand for payment, before suit. The declaration alleges that the account was presented to the board by the attorney for appellant, and that order for payment was refused. This was sufficient. Clay County v. Chickasaw County, 76 Miss. 418, 24 So. 975.

As to the other grounds of demurrer, we think that the declaration “contains sufficient matter of substance *330for the court to proceed' upon the merits of the cause,’’ section 521, Code 1930, Hastings-Stout Co. v. Walker, 162 Miss. 275, 285, 139 So. 622, and that we should not attempt decision upon those matters of merit until the facts for both sides are fully developed.

The demurrer to the declaration as amended should have been overruled.

Reversed and remanded.
EXHIBIT
      32.1





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 Quarterly Report of Whitemark Homes, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the
      undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
      certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:




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




2.  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.


Date:August
              7, 2007/s/
*William
              D. Rigsby*William
                D. Rigsby
              Chief
                Executive Officer


Date:
              August 7,
              2007/s/ *Russ
              Christensen*Russ
                Christensen
              Acting
                Principal Financial Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Whitemark Homes, Inc. and will be retained
      by Whitemark Homes, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or its staff upon request.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________ No. 98-30355

_______________________ JAMES H. KOSTMAYER, JR.; ROBERT I. LAWSON, JR., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, John W. Magaw, Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, Defendant-Appellee.

________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 98-CV-350-H

________________________________________________

April 9, 1999 Before REAVLEY, POLITZ, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
James J. Kostmayer, Jr., and Robert I. Lawson, Jr., appeal the district court’s grant of the defendant-appellee’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative,
for summary judgment, challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
and § 925(c), as well as the denial of their request for a wri t of mandamus or a declaratory judgment. Having considered the briefs and oral argument of counsel2

and pertinent parts of the record, and for essentially the reasons assigned by the
district court in its o rder granting the United States’ motion to dismiss and
alternative motion for summar y judgment filed April 6, 1998, the judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-21-00333-CV

NEXUS SERIES B, LLC

v.

DURHAM TRADING PARTNERS XII, LLC

On Appeal from the

201st District Court of Travis County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. D-1-GN-20-005702

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

December 1, 2022
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1006 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1006

 To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel Arbitrage 
                                  II.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                May 20 (legislative day, April 19), 1993

 Mr. Hollings introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel Arbitrage 
                                  II.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
sections 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46, United States Code, and 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), as 
applicable on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation for the vessel 
Arbitrage II, United States official number 962861.

                                 <all>
```
Document

Exhibit 10.5



SWING NOTE
												
	$	______________		____________, 20__




FOR VALUE RECEIVED, each of the undersigned, FORTEGRA FINANCIAL CORPORATION and LOTS  INTERMEDIATE  CO.  (collectively,  the “Borrowers”),  hereby unconditionally promise to pay to _____________________ (the “Lender”) or its registered assigns, on the Revolving Credit Maturity Date of the hereinafter defined Credit Agreement, at the principal office of Fifth Third Bank, National Association, as Administrative Agent, in Cincinnati, Ohio (or such other location as the Administrative Agent may designate to the Borrowers), in immediately available funds, the principal sum of _____________ Dollars ($__________) or, if less, the aggregate unpaid principal amount of all Swing Loans made by the Lender to the Borrowers pursuant to the Credit Agreement, together with interest on the principal amount of each Swing Loan from time to time outstanding hereunder at the rates, and payable in the manner and on the dates, specified in the Credit Agreement.


This Swing Note (this “Note”) is the Swing Note referred to in the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated as of August 4, 2020, by and among the Borrowers, the Guarantors party thereto, the Lenders party thereto, and Fifth Third Bank, National Association, as Administrative Agent and Issuing Lender (as amended, restated, modified or supplemented from time to time, the “Credit Agreement”), and this Note and the holder hereof are entitled to all the benefits and security provided for thereby or referred to therein, to which Credit Agreement reference is hereby made for a statement thereof. All defined terms used in this Note, except terms otherwise defined herein, shall have the same meaning as in the Credit Agreement.  This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, without regard to conflicts of law provisions.


Voluntary prepayments may be made hereon, certain prepayments are required to be made hereon, and this Note may be declared due prior to the expressed maturity hereof, all in the events, on the terms and in the manner as provided for in the Credit Agreement.


[Signature Page to Follow]









IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Borrowers have caused this Swing Note to be duly executed as of the date first written above.


						
	BORROWERS:
		
	FORTEGRA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation

		
	By:	
	Name:	
	Title:	
		
	LOTS INTERMEDIATE CO., a Delaware corporation

		
	By:	
	Name:	
	Title:	


[Signature Page to Swing Note]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,633
<SECURITIES>                                     5,321
<RECEIVABLES>                                      605
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,480
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,701
<PP&E>                                           2,998
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,970)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,840
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,377
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            73
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,774)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,840
<SALES>                                         47,389
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,389
<CGS>                                           43,145
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,145
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,504
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,036
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,296)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,296)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.58)


</TABLE>
H. Res. 500

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

August 2, 1994.

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. 4003) to authorize appropriations for fiscal

year 1995 for certain maritime programs of the Department

of Transportation, to amend the Merchant Marine Act, 1936,

as amended, to revitalize the United States-flag merchant

marine, and for other purposes. 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 shall not exceed one hour, with thirty minutes

equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking

minority member of the Committee on Merchant Marine and

Fisheries and thirty minutes equally divided and controlled by

the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee

on Ways and Means. After general debate the bill shall be

considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall
2

HRES 500 EH

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

Merchant Marine and Fisheries now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment recommended by the Committee on

Ways and Means now printed in the bill and 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 directly or indirectly changing title II

of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute,

as modified, shall be in order except the amendment printed

in part 2 of the report of the Committee on Rules. That

amendment 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, and shall not be subject

to amendment. All points of order against the amendment

printed in part 2 of the report are waived. At the conclusion

of the 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
3

HRES 500 EH

the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee

amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified. 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.

SEC. 2. In the engrossment of H.R. 4003, the Clerk

shall insert the text of H.R. 2151, as passed by the House,

as a new title I and shall redesignate the succeeding titles accordingly.

Attest:

Clerk.
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

JOHNNY COVINGTON

VERSUS

CLARK SAND CO., INC.; CLEMCO

INDUSTRIES CORPORATION F/K/A CLEMCO

SERVICES CORP.; DEPENDABLE ABRASIVES, 

INC.; E.D. BULLARD COMPANY; EMPIRE

ABRASIVE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, L.P.; 

LEHIGH HANSON, INC. ( A SUBSIDIARY OF

HEIDELBERGCEMENT GROUP) F/K/A HANSON

AGGREGATES, INC. F/K/A HANSON

AGGREGATES CENTRAL, INC. F/K/A

PIONEER SOUTH CENTRAL, INC. F/K/A

PIONEER CONCRETE OF TEXAS, INC.; 

INGERSOLL-RAND CORPORATION; LEROI

COMPRESSOR A/K/A ROTARY COMPRESSION

TECHNOLOGIES; 3M COMPANY; RUEMELIN

MANUFACTURING CO., INC.; SANSTORM, 

INC.; BOB SCHMIDT MANUFACTURING, 

INC.; SOUTHERN SILICA OF LOUISIANA, 

INC.; SPECIALTY SAND COMPANY; SULLAIR

COMPRESSOR CORPORATION; AND TXI

OPERATIONS, L.P. 

NO. 2022 CW 1204

MARCH 6, 2023

In Re: Empire Abrasive Equipment Company, L.P., applying for

supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, 

Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 649436. 

BEFORE: WELCH, PENZATO, AND LANIER, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED. 

AHP

WIL

Welch, J., dissents and would issue a briefing schedule. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Richard E. HUTCHINS, Appellee.

No. 71-419.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 10, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 15, 1972.

*378Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.

John L. Riley, of Riley, Schowe & Salts-man, St. Petersburg, for appellee.

LILES, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellee was charged with the offense of receiving and concealing stolen property. Following a jury trial and conviction, the trial judge granted a new trial on the grounds that the search warrant did not sufficiently describe the property to be seized because it did not contain as complete a description of the property to be seized as was available to the State at the time of application for the search warrant. The items allegedly stolen were socket wrenches, meter, timing light, well meters, radios, drills and other mechanics’ tools located at Gulf Coast Motors. Two of the sockets allegedly stolen were metric sockets having the letter “F” for Frank Bachelor, who was a mechanic at Gulf Coast Motors, and other markings that he had on some of the tools.

Robert L. Bell testified that he and Wilbur Bolius committed the burglary and they identified certain of the tools that they had taken from Gulf Coast Motors. He further testified that he sold these tools to the appellee, Richard E. Hutchins, for the sum of $75.00. Both Bell and Bolius accompanied the officers when the search was made and they identified the property that they had stolen and sold to appellee, Richard E. Hutchins. They further identified the socket wrench and numerous and sundry other tools.

We believe the trial court erred in granting a new trial based on the fact that the warrant did not sufficiently describe the property. While it is true the warrant did not describe all of the property seized, it did describe a sufficient amount of the property; and that which was not described by the warrant was further identified by the burglars. If some of the tools were improperly seized, those which were properly seized should not have been suppressed.

We believe the search warrant sufficiently described certain of the items seized and coupled with the identification of the items by the burglars there was probable cause to believe the items were *379stolen property. Ludwig v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 898.

For the foregoing reasons, the cause is reversed and remanded for action consistent with this opinion.

MANN and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
#### G & C FORD COMPANY, a corporation, Petitioner, v. David TONER, Respondent.

No. 41413.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 17, 1972.

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1972.

William M. Howell, of Howell, Kirby, Montgomery, D’Aiuto, Dean & Hallowes, Jacksonville, for petitioner.

Harry B. Mahon, of Mahon & Mahon, Jacksonville, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari reflected apparent jurisdiction in this Court and the writ of certiorari issued. After argument and upon further examination of the record and briefs in this case, we conclude that there is no conflict justifying the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court. Therefore, the petition for writ of certiorari is dismissed and the writ is hereby discharged.

It is so ordered.

ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ROBERTS, C. J., dissents.

ERVIN, J., dissents with opinion.

CARLTON, J., not participating.

ERVIN, Justice

(dissenting).

Under the principles announced in Raydel, Ltd. v. Medcalfe, 178 So.2d 569 (Fla.1965), a bailor-owner of a car (in this instance G & C Ford Co.) is not liable for injuries his bailee inflicts upon himself by reason of his negligent operation of the bailed car. The dangerous instrumentality and vicarious liability doctrines do not cover such a situation. Neither is the bailor-owner liable for injuries negligently inflicted upon a successor bailee (Toner in this case) by the driver (McGowan) selected by the successor bailee (Toner) to operate the car.

*Raydel*holds: . . . where a bailee instead of driving the automobile himself permits a third party to drive it for him and is injured by the driver’s negligence while a passenger in the car,” the bailor-owner of the car is not liable. (Text 572.)