alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 10.3**

 

July 31, 2008

 

**CONFIDENTIAL**

 

Dear [INSERT HOLDER]:

 

This letter is being sentto you as a holder (a “Holder”) of one or more Convertible Subordinated NotesDue January 2010 (the “Notes”) which were issued by LiquidmetalTechnologies, Inc. (the “Company”) from and after January of 2007.   The Company believes that it is advisable to amendSection 1(b) of the Note by changing the first Amortization Date (asdefined in the Note) from July 31, 2008 to September 30. 2008 and bychanging the Amortization Redemption Amount (as defined in the Note) to be paidon each Amortization Date to 1/32 of the original principal amount of the Note(rounded up to the next whole dollar).  Inaccordance with Section 17 of the Notes, the Company is seeking the writtenconsent to such amendment from the holders of Notes representing a majority ofthe aggregate principal amount of the outstanding Notes.  Your signature below evidences your agreementto this amendment and shall represent your written consent for purposes of Section 17of the Notes, and upon the Company’s receipt of such consents from the holdersof a majority of the aggregate principal amount of the outstanding Notes, theamendment shall be deemed effective.

 

Please indicate your consentto the foregoing amendment by signing in the space provided below and returninga copy to the Company.

 
|   | Sincerely, |
|--------|------------|
|   |       |
|   |       |
|   | John Kang  |
|   | Chairman   |

 

 
| AGREED TO AND ACKNOWLEDGED: |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|
|                        |   |
| Name of Holder:             |   |   |
| By:                         |   |   |
| Name:                       |   |   |
| Title:                      |   |   |
| Date:                       |   | , 2008 |   |
|                             |        |  |  |

 

----
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 21

Subsidiaries of Registrant

The following subsidiaries are direct or indirect subsidiaries of the
Company:

     VBI Inc., a Delaware corporation
     Golf Card International Corp., a Delaware corporation
     Venture Enterprises, Inc., a Delaware corporation
     Camp Coast to Coast, Inc., a Delaware corporation
     Golf Card Resort Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation
     TL Enterprises, Inc., a Delaware corporation
     Golf Card Holding Corporation, a Delaware corporation
     GSS Enterprises, Inc., a Delaware corporation
     National Association for Female Executives, Inc., a Delaware corporation
     Woodall Publications Corporation, a Delaware corporation
     AGI Properties of Colorado, Inc., a Delaware corporation
     Affinity Bank, a California corporation
     Affinity Insurance Group, Inc., a Colorado corporation
     Affinity Group Thrift Holding Corporation, a Delaware corporation
     Affinity Road and Travel Club, Inc., a Delaware corporation
     Affinity Brokerage, Inc., a Delaware corporation
     ART Holding Corp., a Delaware corporation
     Camping Realty, Inc., a Kentucky corporation
     Camping World, Inc., a Kentucky corporation
     CWI, Inc., a Kentucky corporation
     CW Michigan, Inc., a Delaware corporation
     Ehlert Publishing Group, Inc., a Minnesota corporation.
     Exposition Group, Inc., a Minnesota corporation


                                      104
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 129 (Friday, September 21, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1586]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. KEVIN BRADY

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 20, 2012

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 585, I was 
unavoidably detained and could not be present for last night's rollcall 
vote on H.R. 5044, the Andrew P. Carpenter Tax Act. I am a cosponsor 
and strong supporter of this legislation, which would provide tax 
relief from any amounts of private educational loans forgiven for 
service members who lost their lives in the line of duty since the 
beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom in October of 2001. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yes.''

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer



Pursuant to



Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005(the Report) of
MCG Capital Corporation (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael R. McDonnell, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best
of my knowledge, that:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/S/    MICHAEL R. MCDONNELLName: Michael R. McDonnellDate: May 5, 2005
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6461

RYLAND SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE; GENE JOHNSON; R. A. YOUNG; GEORGE DEEDS; R. C. MATHENA; MAJOR ROWLETTE;LIEUTENANT YOUNCE; LIEUTENANT HONAKER; SERGEANT BLEVINS; SERGEANT CHILDRESS; OFFICER KILBORNE; DOCTOR BUNKER; NURSE MULLINS; NURSE BRADLEY; JOHN DOES, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-616-7) Submitted: July 31, 2001 Decided: August 21, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ryland Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Garrett Hill, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; David Ernest Boelzner, WRIGHT, ROBINSON, OSTHIMER & TATUM, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Ryland Smith appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Smith v. Angelone , No. CA-99-616-7 (W.D. Va. Nov. 16, 2000 & filed Feb. 28, 2001; entered Mar. 1, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 129 (Friday, September 21, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H6236]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                     HOLD THE IRS' FEET TO THE FIRE

  (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to address 
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it's time for Americans to 
know the truth about the abuse of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars, 
especially at a time when the President is calling for tax increases.
  The issue I'm talking about is IRS action that puts billions of 
taxpayer dollars at risk. Currently, the IRS allows individuals without 
a Social Security number to get cash benefits--like the $1,000 
refundable child tax credit which is costing American taxpayers 
billions of dollars--by obtaining an individual taxpayer identification 
number, or ITIN.
  A recent IG report revealed a shocking scandal within the IRS that 
encouraged employees to fast track ITIN approval without regard to 
preventing fraud. The ITIN has become a ticket to get cash from Uncle 
Sam, and this is wrong.
  I'm introducing the ITIN Reform Act to hold the IRS' feet to the fire 
to better protect the American taxpayer, and I urge all my colleagues 
to support this bill.

                          ____________________
```
Map Created: March 2015

Data Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, REIS, 2013

Per Capita Income Rates in Appalachia, 2013

(County Rates)

Per capita income is a measure of the total personal income of 

an area divided by the resident population of the area. The map 

uses natural breaks in the distribution to organize the data into 

groups of common values. 

0 50 100

Miles

GEORGIA

ALABAMA

MISSISSIPPI

SOUTH

CAROLINA

NORTH CAROLINA

VIRGINIA

WEST

VIRGINIA

KENTUCKY

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA

WISCONSIN

MICHIGAN

DE

NJ PENNSYLVANIA

MARYLAND

NEW YORK

TENNESSEE

$20,904 - $28,459

$28,460 - $32,605

$32,606 - $37,965

$37,966 - $53,208

Per Capita Income

U.S. average = $44,765

Appalachian average = $36,608

(Natural Breaks Classification)
* 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. 07-10115 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. TERRENCE EUGENE PRIESTLEY Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:06-CR-10-ALL
Before KING, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Having pleaded guilty, Terrence Eugene Priestley appeals his conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Priestley argues that the district court plainly erred by enhancing his sentence under U.S.S.G.§ 2K2.1(b)(6) based on the finding that he used or possessed the firearm in connection with another felony offense. Priestley does not dispute that, contemporaneously with his possession ofthe prohibited firearm, he committed United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D February 12, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-10115

2 the state jail felony of evading arrest. See T EX
. PENAL CODE A NN
. § 38.04(a), (b)(1) (Vernon 2001). He argues, however, that the § 2K2.1(b)(6) sentence enhancement is plain error because he did not use or brandish the firearm in connection with his attempt toevade arrest. As the presence of a loaded firearm in Priestley’s car during his flight from police had the potential offacilitating his attempt to evade arrest, the district court did not plainly err by enhancing his offense level. See § 2K2.1, comment. (n. 14)(A); U nited States v. Armstead, 114 F.3d 504, 510-13 (5th Cir. 1997). Priestly further argues that the district court plainly erred in finding that the facts stipulated in connection with his plea established that he possessed the weapon “in or affecting interstate commerce” as required by 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)
or that he knowingly committed the offense; however, he correctly concedes that his argument is foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001); U nited States v. Dancy, 861 F.2d 77, 81 (5th Cir. 1988). Priestley also challenges as plain error the district court’s order that he serve his federal sentence consecutively to a pending state sentence for burglary of a habitation, but he properly concedes that this issue has been resolved against him. See United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 474- 74 (5th Cir. 2006). AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 8.1



Significant Subsidiaries of Sociedad
Química y Minera de Chile S.A.



|Name of Subsidiary                                    |  | Country of Incorporation
|----------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------
|SQM Industrial S.A.                                   |  | Chile                   
|SQM Nitratos S.A.                                     |  | Chile                   
|SQM Salar S.A.                                        |  | Chile                   
|Minera Nueva Victoria S.A.                            |  | Chile                   
|Servicios Integrales de Transito y Transferencia S.A. |  | Chile                   
|Soquimich Comercial S.A.                              |  | Chile                   
|SQM Potasios. S.A.                                    |  | Chile                   
|SQM North America Corp.                               |  | USA                     
|SQM Europe N.V.                                       |  | Belgium                 



For a complete list of foreign and domestic subsidiaries see
Note 2.5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 16, 2014

Order 

December 16, 2014

149494(57)

MAKENZIE GREER, a Minor, KENNETH 

GREER, Individually and as Conservator, and 

ELIZABETH GREER,

Plaintiffs-Appellees/

Cross-Appellants,

v

ADVANTAGE HEALTH and ANITA R. 

AVERY, M.D.,

Defendants-Appellants/

Cross-Appellees,

and

TRINITY HEALTH MICHIGAN, d/b/a

ST. MARY’S HOSPITAL and KRISTINA

MIXER, M.D.,

Defendants.

SC: 149494

COA: 312655

Kent CC: 10-009033-NH

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Michigan State Medical Society to 

participate as amicus curiae pursuant to MCR 7.306(D)(1) is GRANTED.
#### Newt LITTLEFIELD, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12755.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

April 20, 1960.

*797Alfred M. Parsons, Shawnee, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Owen J. Watts, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harvey H. Cody, Co. Atty. Pottawatomie County, Shawnee, for defendant in error.

NIX, Judge.

The defendant, Newt Littlefield, was-charged jointly with L. L. Davis, by information in the District Court of Pottawatomie County and convicted of the crime of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. The jury was unable to reach a verdict as to the punishment and left the same to be fixed by the trial judge who sentenced the defendant to serve a term of fifteen (IS) months in the state penitentiary.

This is a companion case of that of Davis v. State, 354 P.2d 466, decided by this court on the 20th day of January 1960. The facts and assignments of errors are the same. It is therefore unnecessary to review the evidence and the law announced in that case.

The judgment and sentence of the District Court of Pottawatomie County is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial in conformity with the law announced in the Davis case.

BRETT, J., concurs.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 9 (Friday, January 12, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 2469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-00521]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 03/03-0257]


Multiplier Capital, LP; Surrender of License of Small Business 
Investment Company

    Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small 
Business Administration under section 309 of the Small Business 
Investment Act of 1958, as amended, and 13 CFR 107.1900 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations to function as a small business investment company 
under the Small Business Investment Company license number 03/03-0257 
issued to Multiplier Capital, LP said license is hereby declared null 
and void.

Bailey Devries,
Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation, United 
States Small Business Administration.
[FR Doc. 2024-00521 Filed 1-11-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
#### Samuel T. Engle et al., legatees &c., appellants, *v.*Henry Darnell, guardian of Joshua *W.*Hurley, respondent.

On appeal from a decree of the ordinary, whose opinion is reported in *Darnell*v. *Buzby, 5 Dick. Ch. Rep. 725.*

*Mr. Felcard P. Budd,*for the appellants.

*Mr. Jerome B. Grigg*and *Mr. Samuel H. Grey,*for the respondent.

Per Curiam.

Decree affirmed, for the reasons given by the ordinary.

*For affirmance*— Depue, Garrison, Lippincott, Reed, Yan Syckel, Brown, Krueger — 7.

*For reversal*— Dixon, Bogert — 2.
Table of Contents


Exhibit 8.1


SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES

The table below sets
forth all of our direct and indirect significant subsidiaries and the percentage of
equity of each subsidiary we owned directly or indirectly as of December 31, 2004:

|Name of Company                                                              | Jurisdiction of Incorporation | Percentage Owned
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------- | ----------------
|Propimex, S.A. de C.V                                                        | Mexico                        | 100.00%         
|Corporación Interamericana de Bebidas, S.A. de C.V                           | Mexico                        | 100.00%         
|Panamco México, S.A. de C.V                                                  | Mexico                        | 99.24%          
|Panamco Bajío, S.A. de C.V                                                   | Mexico                        | 95.36%          
|Panamco de Venezuela, S.A                                                    | Venezuela                     | 100.00%         
|Kristine Oversease, S.A. de C.V. (a holding company of Brazilian operations) | Mexico                        | 83.1%
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 10.21

                             SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
                           BELDEN WIRE & CABLE COMPANY
                    SUPPLEMENTAL EXCESS DEFINED BENEFIT PLAN

WHEREAS, Belden Wire & Cable Company (hereinafter referred to as the "Company")
established the Belden Wire & Cable Company Supplemental Excess Defined Benefit
Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan") restated as of January 1, 1998, for
the benefit of certain employees of the Employer;

WHEREAS, Section 1 of Article IX of the Plan in effect prior to this amendment
provides that the Company may amend the Plan at any time;

WHEREAS, the Company deems it desirable to make certain revisions to the Plan;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended hereinafter set forth, effective January 1,
2001.

Article 4, Section 1(A) is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:

"(A)     the provisions of the Pension Plan providing for the limitation of
         compensation and benefits in accordance with Code Section 401(a)(17)
         and/or Code Section 415 were inapplicable, less the benefit actually
         payable to or on behalf of the Participant under the Pension Plan; or"

Article 4, Section 2 is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:

"SECTION 4.2      DEATH BENEFITS

         In the event a Participant dies before his interest under the Plan has
         been distributed to him in full, any remaining interest, or portion
         thereof, shall be determined pursuant to Section 4.1 and distributed to
         his Beneficiary who shall be the person designated as his beneficiary
         under the Pension Plan. Such benefit shall be payable in a lump sum
         equal to the death benefit payable under the Pension Plan, determined
         as if the provisions of the Pension Plan providing for the limitation
         of compensation and benefits in accordance with Code Section 401(a)(17)
         and/or Code Section 415 were inapplicable, less the lump sum death
         benefit actually payable under the Pension Plan."

                                                                     Page 1 of 2

<PAGE>

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Belden Wire & Cable Company, by its duly authorized officer,
executes this amendment on the 1st day of January, 2001.

                                                     BELDEN WIRE & CABLE COMPANY

                                                     By:  /s/Cathy O. Staples
                                                          ----------------------

                                                     Its: Vice President

                                                     Date:  January 1, 2001

Attest:  /s/Eivind J. Kolemainen
         -----------------------

                                                                     Page 2 of 2
# C_2008116EN.01002802.xml

| 9.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 116/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/28

---

Action brought on 20 March 2008 — Okalux v OHIM — Ondex (ONDACELL)

(Case T-126/08)

(2008/C 116/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Okalux GmbH (Marktheidenfeld, Germany) (represented by: M. Beckensträter, Rechtsanwältin)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Ondex S.A.S.

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 22 January 2008, received on 24 January 2008, and declare that the opposition of 29 August 2006 is admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 22 January 2008, received on 24 January 2008, and declare that the opposition of 29 August 2006 is admissible;

| — | order the defendant to pay the allowable costs, including the costs of the original proceedings (including the costs of the intervener). |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the allowable costs, including the costs of the original proceedings (including the costs of the intervener).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Ondex S.A.S.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The trade mark ‘ONDACELL’ for goods and services in Classes 6, 17 and 19 (application No 4 755 971).

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Decision of the Opposition Division: The notice of opposition is deemed not to have been entered.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 5 and 8 of Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 (1), Decision No EX-96-1 (2) and Communication No 5/96 (3).

Pleas in law:

1

2

3

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 of 13 December 1995 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 33).

1

(2)  Decision No EX-96-1 of the President of the Office of 11 January 1996 concerning the conditions for opening current accounts at the Office (OHIM OJ 1996, 48).

2

(3)  Communication No 5/96 of the President of the Office, of 8 August 1996, concerning current accounts (OHIM OJ 1996, 1461).

3

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 129 (Friday, September 21, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H6278]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. KING of New York:
       H.R. 6524.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
       The Congress shall have Power .  .  . To regulate Commerce 
     with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with 
     the Indian Tribes.
```