alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
BANK OF AMERICA

                                                                                                   Amendment to Documents

AMENDMENTNO. 3 TO BUSINESS LOAN AGREEMENT

RECITALS

                     A.        The Bank and the Borrower entered into a certain Business Loan Agreement dated as of August         23, 1999 (the "Agreement").

                      B.        The Bank and the Borrower desire to amend the Agreement.

AGREEMENT

                      **1.  Definitions**.  Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment shall have the         meaning given to them in the Agreement.

                      **2. Amendments**.  The Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

            2.1 Paragraphs 8.4, 8.5 and 8.6 of the Agreement are amended in part by adding the following after the lastsentence of each such paragraph: 

“For the fiscalquarters ending March 31, 2000, June 30, 2000, and September 30, 2000, thecalculation of this covenant shall exclude a pre-tax write-down amount of up toThree Million Three Hundred Thirty Eight Thousand Dollars ($3,338,000).” 

        **3Representations and Warranties**. When the Borrower signs thisAmendment, the Borrower represents and warrants to the Bank that: (a) there isno event which is, or with notice or lapse of time or both would be, a defaultunder the Agreement except those events, if any, that have been disclosed inwriting to the Bank or waived in writing by the Bank, (b) the representationsand warranties in the Agreement are true as of the date of this Amendment as ifmade on the date of this Amendment, (c) this Amendment is within theBorrower’s powers, has been duly authorized, and does not conflict with anyof the Borrower’s organizational papers, and (d) this Amendment does notconflict with any law, agreement, or obligation by which the Borrower is bound. 

        **4Effect of Amendment**. Except as provided in this Amendment, allof the terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force andeffect. 

  This Amendment is executed as of the date stated at the beginning of this Amendment.
Monica Gonzalez, Et 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 28, 2014

No. 04-13-00684-CV

Michael IDROGO,

Appellant

v.

Monica GONZALEZ, et al.,

Appellees

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010-CI-21149

Honorable Larry Noll, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On December 31, 2013, after Appellant Michael Idrogo failed to comply with our order 

regarding his failure to pay for the clerk’s record, we dismissed this appeal for want of 

prosecution. On January 16, 2014, Appellant filed a petition for review in the Texas Supreme 

Court. On January 17, 2014, Appellant filed an “Objection and Motion to Set Aside Order of 

December 31, 2013.” 

We construe Appellant’s January 17, 2014 motion as a motion for rehearing. Appellant’s 

motion for rehearing is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.1 (motion for rehearing); id. R. 19.2 

(“In a civil case, the court of appeals retains plenary power to vacate or modify its judgment 

during the periods prescribed in [Rule] 19.1 even if a party has filed a petition for review in the 

Supreme Court.”). 

It is so ORDERED on January 28, 2014.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: __________________________________

 Keith E. Hottle

 Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted  from the
audited financial statements of BP Prudhoe Bay Royalty Trust as of, and for the 
year ended, December 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to 
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         535,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                (336,384)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,098
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              103
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        25,008
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,098
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,180
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   614
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (173,518)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,566
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,566
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,566
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.681
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.681
        


</TABLE>
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.01 MB)

Tags:Ft. Bliss, DLA Distribution, Defense Logistics Agency Distribution, DLA Distribution Susquehanna, dla, Texas  , u.s. army sergeants major academy, Defense Logistics Agency

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 39 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 39

  Relating to the approval of the proposed Agreement for Cooperation 
    Between the Government of the United States of America and the 
Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam Concerning the Peaceful 
                        Uses of Nuclear Energy.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 9, 2014

Mr. Reid (by request) introduced the following joint resolution; which 
   was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Relating to the approval of the proposed Agreement for Cooperation 
    Between the Government of the United States of America and the 
Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam Concerning the Peaceful 
                        Uses of Nuclear Energy.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress does favor 
the proposed agreement for cooperation transmitted to the Congress by 
the President on May 8, 2014.
                                 <all>
```
P.1 

RCRA Box 1883 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

8) ll-B-169 

Docket Number: 

A-90-19 

Printed 12/3/2008 10:42:10 AM Sheet 8 of 171 
P.2 

A-90-19 

ll-B-169 

PENDING CONFIDENTIAL 

The following information is located in the confidentia. 

files of the Director, Emission Standards Division, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. This 

information is confidential pending final determination by the 

Administrator and is not available for public inspection. 

W. Floyd, Radian Corporation, to Process Vents Docket 

A-90-19, December 1991, HON NESHAP: Industry 

Characteristics/Ethylamine. 12 pages. 

CBI Document Control No. 86/23, PPS-169.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.08 MB)

Tags:Ardra Farally, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard , Navy Meritorious Civilian Service Award , Philippe Grandjean

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
#### In the Matter of Dominick Napolitano, Petitioner, against Stephen P. Kennedy, as Commissioner of the Police Department of the City of New York, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

December 12, 1958.

*Emgelman, Greenberg S handy (Lester handy*of counsel), for petitioner.

*598
      *Charles H. Tenney, Corporation Counsel (Arthur F.*X *Henriksen*of counsel), for respondent.

Owen McGtvern, J.

In this article 78 proceeding, petitioner, a policeman, seeks an order directing the Police Commissioner to authorize payment to him of his salary for the period of March 29, 1954 through December 14, 1954. The respondent alleges that petitioner was suspended without pay on March 29, 1954 for shooting a man while investigating a crime which he had not officially reported as required by departmental regulations.

The suspension came hard upon the indictment of the petitioner for homicide. Admittedly, the charges and specifications upon which he was later tried by the commissioner were not served upon him until April 14, 1954. Petitioner was acquitted of the criminal charge and was also found not guilty later in the departmental trial of the same act, i.e., unlawfully and without just cause causing the death of a man by a shot from his revolver. He was found guilty of the second specification in that he failed to report, etc. upon the crime he was engaged in investigating, and was punished with a *‘ ‘*reprimand ’ ’ and restored to duty.

The petitioner brought no proceeding to review that determination made on December 13, 1954, nor does he seek to have it reviewed in this proceeding. He relies wholly upon the decision in the action of *Brenner*v. *City of New York*(12 Misc 2d 311), wherein the court held that a suspension without pay was invalid unless preceded by or accompanied with the service of charges upon which the suspension was based. Petitioner, however, has not successfully met the Statute of Limitations, and therefore the analogy of this case with *Brenner (supra)*is not determinative. This court must and does find that the right to the pay in question accrued no later than December of 1954, and this proceeding having been instituted in May, 1958, the two-year statute (Administrative Code of City of New York, § 434a-15.0) is a complete bar.

Petition is dismissed, without costs.
#### Bertha Rothman, Respondent, *v.*Max Skernick, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York County,

January 7, 1958.

*963
      *William S. O’Connor*and *George V. O’Haire*for appellant.

*Noah Seedman*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Plaintiff failed to present any reason or excuse for her delay of more than two years after joinder of issue in bringing the cause on for trial. Under the circumstances here disclosed, it was an improper exercise of discretion to deny appellant’s motion to dismiss the action as against him for lack of prosecution. *(Rothman*v. *Skernick & Morton Bros.,*N. Y. L. J., Oct. 28, 1957, p. 9, col. 3 and cases cited.)

The order should be unanimously reversed upon the law, with

$10 costs and taxable disbursements, and motion granted.

Concur — Pette, Hart and Di Giovanna, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.
* Under 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except in

the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-30325

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHARLES RAY SMITH, JR., also known as Charlieman,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-1832 (93-CR-50054-1)

- - - - - - - - - -

August 27, 1998

Before WISDOM, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Charles Ray Smith, Jr., # 08377-035, appeals the district

court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We granted a

certificate of appealability (COA) on Smith’s claim that his

counsel was ineffective for failing to perfect his direct appeal. 

Smith contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel

when his attorney failed to file a notice of appeal upon Smith’s

request, resulting in the loss of his right to a direct appeal. 

Smith argues that the district court erred in dismissing his §

2255 motion without holding an evidentiary hearing.
No. 97-30325

-2-

The failure of counsel to perfect an appeal upon request of

his client may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel,

entitling the defendant to an out-of-time appeal. See United

States v. Gipson, 985 F.2d 212, 215 (5th Cir. 1993). “A motion

brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 can be denied without a hearing

only if the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively

show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief." United States

v. Bartholomew, 974 F.2d 39, 41 (5th Cir. 1992).

Smith alleged in his § 2255 motion and accompanying

memorandum that he was denied his right to a direct appeal due to

ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to perfect an

appeal. The Government did not respond to his allegations. The

district court did not address them. And, Smith was not given

the opportunity to develop his claim. The record does not

conclusively show that Smith is not entitled to relief on this

issue. It cannot be determined from the record whether Smith’s

attorney advised him of his right to appeal or whether Smith

requested his counsel to file a notice of appeal. Smith was

entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Bartholomew, 974 F.2d at 41.

The district court’s judgment is VACATED, and this case is

REMANDED to the district court for an evidentiary hearing to

develop the facts relating to Smith’s claim that he was denied

his right to a direct appeal due to ineffective assistance of

counsel.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lawrence Spero, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fertig, J.), rendered May 11, 1989, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We do not agree with the defendant’s contention that the complainant’s viewing of an allegedly suggestive photographic array tainted the lineup identification made by the complainant four days later. The evidence adduced at the hearing reveals that the complainant was unable to positively identify the person she selected from the photographic array as one of *783the men who robbed her. However, the evidence establishes that at the time of the lineup, the complainant positively identified the defendant as the person who held the knife to her during the robbery based upon her observations at the time of the crime and not based upon her previous equivocal selection from the photographic array. The hearing court’s decision to credit the complainant’s testimony was not clearly erroneous and is entitled to great weight on appeal, and we find no reason to disturb it *(see, People v Gairy,*116 AD2d 733, 734, citing *People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759). Under these circumstances, we agree with the hearing court’s determination that the lineup identification was not tainted by the prior photographic identification procedure *(see, People v Allah,*158 AD2d 605; *see also, People v English,*75 AD2d 981).

Although the police officer improperly testified as to the identification made by the complainant at the lineup *(see, People v Johnson,*57 NY2d 969, 970; *People v Larsen,*157 AD2d 672), the trial court’s immediate curative instructions were sufficient to dispel whatever prejudicial effect this testimony may have had *(see, People v Jenkins, 122*AD2d 74). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 29 (Monday, February 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 7578]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3425]



[[Page 7578]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Notice

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

DATE AND TIME: Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 10:00 A.M.

PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor)

STATUS: This Meeting Will Be Open to the Public.

Items To Be Discussed

    Correction and Approval of the Minutes for the Meeting of February 
2, 2012.
    Draft Advisory Opinion 2012-02: Wawa, Inc.
    Draft Advisory Opinion 2012-04: Justice Party of Mississippi.
    Management and Administrative Matters.
    Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such 
as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, 
should contact Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary, at (202) 694-1040, at 
least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Shawn Woodhead Werth,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-3425 Filed 2-9-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P