alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.10

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 4
                                     TO THE
                     REVOLVING LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENTS

         THIS AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE REVOLVING LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENTS (the
"Amendment") is made and entered into as of September 28, 2004, by and between
McKinley Enterprises Inc. Profit Sharing Plan and Trust, a Utah corporation
("Lender") and Quest Group International, Inc., a Nevada corporation
("Borrower").

                                 R E C I T A L S

         A. The parties entered into agreements captioned "Revolving Loan and
Security Agreements" (the "Revolving Loan Agreements") on the 12th day of
October, 2001and the 13th day of February, 2002 which agreements were
subsequently amended. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall
have the same meaning as set forth in the Revolving Loan Agreements.

         B. The parties desire to amend the Revolving Loan Agreements, as
amended, to reflect an extension of the due date of the loan.

         NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby amend the Revolving Loan
Agreements as follows:

         1. Section 3 of the Revolving Loan Agreements are hereby amended to
read in its entirety as follows:

         Section 3. Payments. All principal and interest outstanding shall be
         due and payable by the Borrower to the Lender in a single balloon
         payment on April 18, 2005. The terms of any outstanding promissory
         notes relating to the Revolving Loan Agreements are hereby amended to
         reflect the extension of the due date. The Borrower may, from time to
         time, in the Borrower's discretion, make one or more periodic payments
         to the Lender. Such payments shall be credited to the Borrower's
         account on the date that such payment is physically received by the
         Lender. Such payments shall be applied first to the interest
         outstanding, and then to the principal outstanding.

         2. The Revolving Loan Agreements shall remain in full force and effect
and shall remain unaltered, except to the extent specifically amended herein.

         3. This Amendment may be signed in several counterparts, through the
use of multiple signature pages appended to each original, and all such
counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument. Any counterpart to
which is attached the signatures of all parties shall constitute an original of
this Amendment.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of
the date first above written.

"BORROWER"                                     "LENDER"
QUEST GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC.,               MCKINLEY ENTERPRISES INC.
a Nevada corporation                           PROFIT SHARING PLAN AND TRUST
Federal Empl. ID No. 87-0534469                a Utah corporation



By /s/ Craig Davis                             By /s/
---------------------------------              --------------------------------
Craig Davis, President                         Its: Trustee
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 66 Filed 11/09/20 Page 1 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 66 Filed 11/09/20 Page 2 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 66 Filed 11/09/20 Page 3 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 66 Filed 11/09/20 Page 4 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 66 Filed 11/09/20 Page 5 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 66 Filed 11/09/20 Page 6 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 66 Filed 11/09/20 Page 7 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 66 Filed 11/09/20 Page 8 of 8
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4545 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain acrylic staple fibers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 24, 2012 

Mr. JONES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain 

acrylic staple fibers. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN ACRYLIC STAPLE FIBERS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.40.08 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 certain acrylic staple fibers) is amended by striking ‘‘12/ 

7 31/2012’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

9 subsection (a) apply with respect to goods entered, or 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4545 IH

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENTION OF TIME Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

Hammond Development International, 

Inc.,

Plaintiff,

v.

Amazon.com, Inc.,

Amazon.com LLC,

Amazon.com Services, Inc., and 

Amazon Web Services, Inc.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 6:19-CV-00355-ADA

Jury Trial Demanded

PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE [DKT. NO. 30]

Plaintiff Hammond Development International, Inc. (“HDI”) files this Unopposed Motion 

for Extension of Time to file its Response to Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue. See Dkt. No. 

30 (“Motion”). HDI requests an extension up to and including Friday, September 13, 2019. HDI 

needs additional time to respond to the arguments made in Amazon’s Motion and to organize and 

present evidence in response. Counsel for HDI has met and conferred with counsel for Amazon, 

who has indicated that Amazon does not oppose the relief sought herein.

Accordingly, HDI respectfully requests that this Court grant this motion and extend the 

deadline for its response to Amazon’s motion to transfer up to and including Friday, September 

13, 2019. A Proposed Order is attached.

Case 1:20-cv-00342-ADA Document 33 Filed 09/07/19 Page 1 of 3
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENTION OF TIME Page 2 of 3

Dated: September 7, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

___________________________

ERIC M. ALBRITTON

STATE BAR NO. 00790215

BRENT N. BUMGARDNER

STATE BAR NO. 00795272

ANDREW J. WRIGHT

STATE BAR NO. 24063927

NELSON BUMGARDNER ALBRITTON PC

3131 West 7th Street, Suite 300

Fort Worth, Texas 76107

817.377.9111 (telephone)

903.758.7397 (facsimile)

ema@nbafirm.com

brent@nbafirm.com

andrew@nbafirm.com

JOSEPH P. OLDAKER

ILLINOIS BAR NO. 6295319 

(pro hac vice application to be filed)

NELSON BUMGARDNER ALBRITTON PC

15020 S. Ravinia Avenue, Suite 29

Orland Park, Illinois 60462

708.675.1583 (telephone)

joseph@nbafirm.com

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

HAMMOND DEVELOPMENT 

INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Case 1:20-cv-00342-ADA Document 33 Filed 09/07/19 Page 2 of 3
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENTION OF TIME Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to Local Rule 5(b)(1), I hereby certify that the foregoing document was 

electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF filing system, which will generate 

and send an e-mail notification of said filing to all counsel of record, on this the 7th day of 

September, 2019. 

___________________________

ERIC M. ALBRITTON

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(i), I hereby certify that I have conferred with counsel for 

Amazon in advance of filing the present motion. Amazon does not oppose the relief sought in this 

motion.

___________________________

ERIC M. ALBRITTON

Case 1:20-cv-00342-ADA Document 33 Filed 09/07/19 Page 3 of 3
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a BRAZOS 

LICENSING AND DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL INC., 

AND EMC CORPORATION, 

Defendants.

Case No. 6:20-cv-00474-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STRIKE DUPLICATE LETTER OF REQUEST FOR

FOREIGN DISCOVERY

Defendants Dell Technologies Inc., Dell Inc., and EMC Corporation, (collectively 

“Defendants”) filed a Motion for Letter of Request (Dkt. 46) for foreign discovery on November 

6, 2020, which was a duplicate of Motion for Letter of Request (Dkt. 45). Defendants respectfully 

request that the Court strike the Motion for Letter of Request (Dkt. 46).

Dated: November 10, 2020 By: /s/ Barry K. Shelton

Barry K. Shelton

Texas State Bar No. 24055029

bshelton@sheltoncoburn.com

SHELTON COBURN LLP

311 RR 620, Ste. 205

Austin, TX 78734-4775 

Telephone: 512.263.2165

Facsimile: 512.263.2166 

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 49 Filed 11/10/20 Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on November 10, 2020, all counsel of record who are 

deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document 

through the Court’s CM/ECF system under Local Rule CV-5(b)(1). 

/s/ Barry K. Shelton

Barry K. Shelton

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 49 Filed 11/10/20 Page 2 of 2
Case 5:20-cv-00487-DAE Document 1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 1 of 9
Case 5:20-cv-00487-DAE Document 1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 2 of 9
Case 5:20-cv-00487-DAE Document 1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 3 of 9
Case 5:20-cv-00487-DAE Document 1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 4 of 9
Case 5:20-cv-00487-DAE Document 1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 5 of 9
Case 5:20-cv-00487-DAE Document 1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 6 of 9
Case 5:20-cv-00487-DAE Document 1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 7 of 9
Case 5:20-cv-00487-DAE Document 1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 8 of 9
Case 5:20-cv-00487-DAE Document 1 Filed 04/20/20 Page 9 of 9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a BRAZOS 

LICENSING AND DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL INC., 

AND EMC CORPORATION,

Defendants.

Case No. 6:20-cv-00477-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DECLARATION OF BRIAN A. ROSENTHAL IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ 

SECOND NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSED 

MOTION FOR INTRA-DISTRICT TRANSFER OF VENUE 

TO THE AUSTIN DIVISION OF THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Case 6:20-cv-00477-ADA Document 111-1 Filed 08/20/21 Page 1 of 3
1

I, Brian A. Rosenthal, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney permitted to practice law before this Court pro hac vice and am 

licensed to practice law in New York and the District of Columbia. I am a partner with the law 

firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and counsel of record for Defendants Dell Technologies 

Inc., Dell Inc., and EMC Corporation in the above-captioned action. I have personal knowledge 

and/or am directly informed of the matters stated below and, if called, would testify to them under 

oath.

2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 27 is a true and correct copy of WSOU Investments, 

LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development’s Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures, which was served 

in Cases Nos. 6:20-cv-473; 6:20-cv-474; 6:20-cv-475; 6:20-cv-476; 6:20-cv-479; 6:20-cv-480; 

6:20-cv-481; 6:20-cv-482; 6:20-cv-485; and 6:20-cv-486, on April 29, 2021.

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 28 is a true and correct copy of a Patent Security 

Agreement, dated May 28, 2021, and obtained from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office’s website at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html, on August 19, 2021.

4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 29 is a true and correct copy of a Power of Attorney, 

dated August 13, 2021, and obtained from the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s 

website at https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair, on August 19, 2021.

5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 30 is a true and correct copy of a June 1, 2021 hearing 

transcript from WSOU Investments LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc., Case No. 20-cv-903 (W.D. 

Tex.), that was filed in Case No. 21-160 (Fed. Cir.), and obtained on August 19, 2021.

6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 31 is a true and correct copy of Powers of Attorney, 

obtained from the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s website at https://ptab.uspto.gov/, 

on August 19, 2021.

Case 6:20-cv-00477-ADA Document 111-1 Filed 08/20/21 Page 2 of 3
2

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: August 20, 2021

/s/ Brian A. Rosenthal Brian A. Rosenthal

Case 6:20-cv-00477-ADA Document 111-1 Filed 08/20/21 Page 3 of 3
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5448 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Oryzalin. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mr. MEEHAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Oryzalin. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ORYZALIN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.05.16 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Oryzalin) is amended by striking the date in the effective 

7 period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

10 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

11 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Edwin Storch, Appellant, *v.*Allstate Insurance Company, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

November 14, 1957.

*Harold S. Kohn*for appellant.

*Asher Marcus*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

It was error to entertain the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint when an inquest had already been ordered against the defendant and the defendant’s default had not been opened. The granting of the motion may not be treated as an opening of the default *294since the plaintiff was not on notice that the defendant sought this relief nor did the defendant’s motion papers show any-ground for opening its default.

The judgment and order should be reversed, with $10 costs, and motion denied, without prejudice to renewal after the opening of the defendant’s default.

Aurelio, J.

(dissenting). As a consequence of defendant having failed to answer the trial calendar call, the case was set down for inquest. Defendant then moved to vacate its default but the motion was denied by another Justice, without prejudice to renewal upon presentation of a proper set of papers. However, the defendant did not renew this application but instead brought on this motion for summary judgment upon the ground that plaintiff’s own bill of particulars established, as a matter of law, that he does not have a cause of action against defendant.

Section 490 of the Civil Practice Act requires “ The court or judge upon application by a plaintiff for judgment by default * * * must render the judgment to which the plaintiff is entitled ”. An inquest would reveal that plaintiff is not entitled to recover. In these circumstances it was within the province of the court to excuse the default in the process of considering and granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment. I dissent and vote to affirm the order below.

Hoestadter and Tilzer, JJ., concur in *Per Curiam*opinion; Aurelio, J., dissents in opinion.

Judgment and order reversed, etc.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Gerald, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldman, J.), rendered June 22, 1988, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find that the defendant was properly sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. He was fully apprised that the promised sentence would be enhanced if he failed to appear on the scheduled sentencing date. When he failed to appear and was subsequently arrested on a bench warrant, the court properly imposed the greater sentence *(see, People v Raife,*146 AD2d 652; *People v Baessler,*142 AD2d 585). We find no support for the defendant’s unsubstantiated claim on appeal that the imposition of the greater sentence somehow induced him to waive his challenge to the predicate violent felony offender statement. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
#### FERRELL v. STATE.

No. 23115.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 2, 1945.

A. R, Rucks, of Angleton, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Assault with intent to murder is the offense; the punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

Appellant does not seriously contend that the facts showing that he shot the injured party in the left wrist at close range with a 12-gauge shotgun were not sufficient to authorize the jury’s conclusion of guilt. His contention is that the facts also raised the issue of accidental shooting, which should have been submitted to the jury notwithstanding the fact that no exception or objection was reserved to the court’s charge or special requested charge seeking to have that issue submitted.

Under the express provisions of Arts. 658 and 659, C.C.P. Vernon’s Ann., objection to the charge must be presented before it is read to the jury. We are precluded from considering his contention. See Hanvy v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 351, 162 S.W.2d 721. Moreover, we note that appellant, by his own testimony, claimed that he shot in self-defense. He made no claim that the shooting was accidental. •

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
## San Joaquin Valley Unified

Air Pollution Control District

Governing Board, 2007

J. Steven Worthley, Chair

Supervisor, Tulare County

Leroy Ornellas, Vice Chair

Supervisor, San Joaquin County

Judith G. Case

Supervisor, Fresno County Jon McQuiston

Supervisor, Kern County

Tony Barba

Supervisor, Kings County Ronn Dominici

Supervisor, Madera County

William O’Brien

Supervisor, Stanislaus County Michael G. Nelson

Supervisor, Merced County

Raji Brar

Councilmember, City of Arvin Henry T. Perea

Councilmember, City of Fresno

Chris Vierra

Councilmember, City of Ceres

Executive Director/Air Pollution Control Officer

Seyed SadredinThis page intentionally blank.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5474 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5474

To suspend temporarily the duty on cermets for ceramic discharge lamps.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2012

   Mr. Reed introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on cermets for ceramic discharge lamps.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CERMETS FOR CERAMIC DISCHARGE LAMPS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Cermets for         Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          ceramic discharge                                                 12/31/2015
                          lamps and
                          articles thereof,
                          for use in
                          ceramic discharge
                          lamps (provided
                          for in subheading
                          8113.00.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0585

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

ALVIAN ERREVY MARQUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including August 19, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 30 2020

06/30/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0585
Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

JONATHAN VILLAREAL,

individually and derivatively on behalf 

of ZROBLACK, LLC, 

Plaintiff,

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO.:

5:20-CV-00571-OLG

§

v §

§

JOHN SAENZ; 

MIGUEL VILLAREAL, JR.; and 

GUNN, LEE & CAVE, P.C.,

Defendants

§

§

§

§

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ RULE 12 MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND A 

REPLY TO DEFENDANT JOHN SAENZ’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION FOR RECEIVER

______________________________________________________________________________

On this date, the Court considered Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time to 

File his Responses to Defendants’ Rule 12 Motions to Dismiss and a Reply to Defendant 

John Saenz’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Application for Seizure or Alternatively Injunctive 

Relief. After considering the said motion, and the response and arguments of counsel, if 

any, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendants’ Rule 12 

Motions to Dismiss and a Reply to Defendant John Saenz’s Response to Plaintiffs’ 

Application for Seizure or Alternatively Injunctive Relief filed on or before February 25, 

2021 are considered timely. 

Date: February ___, 2021.

___________________________

JUDGE PRESIDING

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 43-1 Filed 02/18/21 Page 1 of 1
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JEREL DENEE KENT,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 5D16-3272

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

________________________________/

Opinion filed October 14, 2016

Petition for Belated Appeal

A Case of Original Jurisdiction. 

Michael C. Nappi, Office of Regional 

Criminal Conflict & Civil Regional Counsel, 

Casselberry, for Petitioner. 

No appearance for Respondent. 

PER CURIAM. 

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed

with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the June 30, 2016 order 

denying amended postconviction motion filed, in Case Number 2010-CF-003649-A, in 

the Circuit Court in and for Seminole County, Florida. See Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(c)(6)(D). 

PETITION GRANTED.

SAWAYA, ORFINGER, and WALLIS, JJ., concur.