alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 10.1

================================================================================

                                                          AMENDMENT TO DOCUMENTS

                   AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO BUSINESS LOAN AGREEMENT

        This Amendment No. 2 (the "Amendment") dated as of April 28, 2000, is
between Bank of America, N.A. (the "Bank"), formerly Bank of America NT&SA, and
Cohu, Inc. (the "Borrower").

                                    RECITALS

        A. The Bank and the Borrower entered into a certain Business Loan
Agreement dated as of June 15, 1998, as previously amended (the "Agreement").

        B. The Bank and the Borrower desire to further 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 The Bank has changed the name of the "Reference Rate" to the
              "Prime Rate." The term "Reference Rate" is therefore amended to
              read "Prime Rate" throughout the Agreement.

          2.2 In Paragraph 1.2 of the Agreement, the date "MAY 1, 2001" is
              substituted for the date "MAY 1, 2000".

          2.3 In Paragraph 6.3 of the Agreement, the ratio "2.0:1.0" is
              substituted for the ratio "2.25:1.0".

          2.4 In Paragraph 6.4 of the Agreement, the amount "ONE HUNDRED FIFTY
              MILLION DOLLARS ($150,000,000)" is substituted for the amount "ONE
              HUNDRED THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS ($130,000,000)".

        3 REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES. When the Borrower signs this
Amendment, the Borrower represents and warrants to the Bank that: (a) there is
no event which is, or with notice or lapse of time or both would be, a default
under the Agreement except those events, if any, that have been disclosed in
writing to the Bank or waived in writing by the Bank, (b) the representations
and warranties in the Agreement are true as of the date of this Amendment as if
made on the date of this Amendment, (c) this Amendment is within the Borrower's
powers, has been duly authorized, and does not conflict with any of the
Borrower's organizational papers, and (d) this Amendment does not conflict with
any law, agreement, or obligation by which the Borrower is bound.

        4 EFFECT OF AMENDMENT. Except as provided in this Amendment, all of the
terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

        This Amendment is executed as of the date stated at the beginning of
this Amendment.



BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.


                                       Cohu Inc.


/s/ Paul M. Tuomainen                  /s/ John H. Allen
-----------------------------------    ------------------------------------

By: Paul M. Tuomainen, Jr.,            By: John H. Allen,
    Vice President                         Vice President/Finance
                                           & Chief Financial Officer
#### LEDBETTER et al. v. FARMER.

No. 14003.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

March 4, 1949.

*877Justice, Moore & Justice, of Athens, for appellants.

Sam Holland, of Athens, for appellee.

CRAMER. Justice.

Appellee was the highest bidder for 92 head of hogs at appellants’ auction barn. He alleged that the hogs afterward developed cholera; that 42 head died, to his damage in the sum of $600; that he expended $55 for vaccine to treat the hogs. He also alleged that appellants failed to deliver a portion of the hogs purchased, and substituted other hogs for them, to his damage in the sum of $152.55; and that his ranch was contaminated by hog cholera germs to his further damage in the sum of $2,000. Appellants answered by general denial, specially denied that they substituted any hogs for those auctioned off to appellee; that they acted as auctioneers and commission agents only and did not warrant or guarantee the hogs against sickness or death.

The jury found that appellants had not substituted the eight hogs, as alleged; that cholera developed among such eight hogs from exposure thereto prior to the time they were delivered to appellee; the value of said eight hogs was $189; and that plaintiff’s hog pasture had not been infected with hog cholera germs as a direct result of cholera originating among said eight hogs. The trial court entered judgment for $244, being the $189 found to be the value of the eight hogs purchased plus $55 for vaccine, from which judgment appellants present this appeal.

Appellants’ three points of error assert that the judgment is not supported by either evidence or a finding by the jury on either an express or implied warranty. We must sustain this contention. The pleadings of plaintiff allege: “That the defendants are engaged in the sale of live stock upon a commission basis, and the sale of said hogs to this plaintiff carried with it an implied warranty upon the part of the defendants that said hogs were sound and free of disease, and this plaintiff so believed at the time he purchased the same.”

The question as to whether there was an implied warranty in the salle of the hogs has been held against appellee in Needham v. Dial, 4 Tex.Civ.App. 141, 23 S.W. 240; Fulwiler Electric Co. v. Jinks McGee & Co., Tex.Civ.App., 211 S.W. 480, 481. 2 Tex.Jur. 854, under the Title “Animals,” quoting Wood v. Ross, Tex.Civ.App., 26 S.W. 148, correctly states the law, as follows: “Generally speaking, the doctrine of caveat emptor applies to the sale of animals, and there is no implied warranty of soundness or breeding qualities.” A different rule applies to title, but title is not involved here. Neither is there any issue of fraud involved. See also 24 R.C.L., p. 202, sec. 474 and p. 176, sec. 450; Barton v. Dowis et al., 315 Mo. 226, 285 S.W. 988, 51 A.L.R. 494.

If there is no liability upon the original seller, there is none upon -the auctioneer unless he makes an express warranty, which is not present here.

The judgment below is therefore reversed and here rendered for appellants.
#### DURAN v. STATE.

No. 21821.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 28, 1942.

B. L. Jeffrey, of Carrizo Springs, and John T. Spann and G. C. Jackson, both of Crystal City, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The unlawful sale of whiskey in a dry-area is the offense; the punishment, confinement in the county jail for one year.

The sufficiency of the evidence to-show that Dimmit County was a dry area is challenged, as also the charge of the court instructing the jury that such county was a dry area. The only evidence showing such dry status is as follows:

> “T. B. Kellogg, being duly sworn, testified in behalf of the State as follows, to-wit:

> “ ‘My name is T. B. Kellogg. I hold the office of County Clerk of Dimmit County,. Texas. I also keep the minutes of the Commissioners Court. I am reading from the official minutes of the Commissioners Court in Volume S pages 41 to 44 inclusive. This-is the official record of the notices, application, canvassing of returns and declaration of result of an election held in said county on December 21st, 1935.’ ”

The several orders referred to not being copied in the statement of facts, we are unable to determine the sufficiency thereof. Moreover, it will be noted that it does not appear that any evidence was introduced' showing the publication of the result of the election and putting local option in effect. Unless proof thereof is waived, or such dry status is agreed to by the accused, the record must affirmatively show that the county was a dry area, in order to' sustain a conviction for unlawfully selling whiskey therein. Hardy v. State, 133 Tex.Cr.R. 619, 113 S.W.2d 918; Baldridge v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 590, 106 S.W.2d 700, and authorities therein cited.

The facts being insufficient to show that Dimmit County was a dry area within the meaning of the Texas Liquor Control Act, Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 666 — 1 et seq., the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.

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.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 215 (Monday, November 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66534-66535]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28383]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP97-71-023]


Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of ISS Revenue 
Sharing Refund Report

October 31, 2000.
    Take notice that on October 25, 2000, Transcontinental Gas Pipe 
Line Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing a refund report showing 
that on October 24, 2000, Transco submitted ISS revenue sharing refunds 
(total principal and interest amount of $219,309.14) to all affected 
shippers in Docket Nos. RP97-71 and RP97-312.
    Section 8 of Transco's Rate Schedule ISS1 provides that, during the 
effectiveness of the Docket No. RP97-71 rate period, which began on May 
1, 1997, Transco shall refund annually 75% of all revenues collected 
associated with the inventory charge portion of the Rate Schedule ISS 
rate in excess of $756,696 to (1) maximum rate firm transportation and 
maximum rate interruptible transportation Buyers who pay storage costs 
for Hester or Eminence, or both (2) Rate Schedule ESS Buyers and (3) 
Rate Schedule WSS-Open Access Buyers (collectively, Eligible Shippers).
    Transco states that it has calculated that the refund amount for 
the annual period from May 1, 1999 through April 30, 2000 equals 
$219,309.14. Pursuant

[[Page 66535]]

to Section 8 of Rate Schedule ISS, Transco refunded that amount to 
Eligible Shippers based on each Eligible Shipper's actual fixed cost 
contribution as a percentage of the total fixed cost contribution of 
all such Eligible Shippers (exclusive of the fixed cost contribution 
pertaining to service purchased by Seller from third parties).
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before November 7, 2000. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of 
this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be 
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-
208-2222 for assistance).
    Beginning November 1, 2000, comments and protests may be filed 
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-28383 Filed 11-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the company's
unaudited financial statements as of and for the three months ended
September 30, 1997, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,127,174
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               76,562,726
<ALLOWANCES>                               (7,484,491)
<INVENTORY>                                  6,843,161
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       2,587,988
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             106,530,887
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     69,951,695
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    29,792,573
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,220,454)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               106,530,887
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,850,671
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,554,505
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               200,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,726,081
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (629,915)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (629,915)
<DISCONTINUED>                             (4,179,028)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,808,943)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.80)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 136 Received in Senate (RDS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 136

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               August 6 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Providing for an adjournment of the House from Friday, August 6, 1993, 
 Saturday, August 7, 1993, Monday, August 9, 1993, or Tuesday, August 
10, 1993, to Wednesday, September 8, 1993, and a recess or adjournment 
of the Senate from Friday, August 6, 1993, Saturday, August 7, 1993, or 
         Sunday, August 8, 1993, to Tuesday, September 7, 1993.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on Friday, August 6, 1993, Saturday, 
August 7, 1993, Monday, August 9, 1993, or Tuesday, August 10, 1993, 
pursuant to a motion made by the Majority Leader, or his designee, it 
stand adjourned until noon on Wednesday, September 8, 1993, or until 
noon on the second day after Members are notified to reassemble 
pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs 
first; and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns at the close of 
business on Friday, August 6, 1993, Saturday, August 7, 1993, or 
Sunday, August 8, 1993, pursuant to a motion made by the Majority 
Leader, or his designee, in accordance with this resolution, it stand 
recessed or adjourned until Tuesday, September 7, 1993, at such time as 
may be specified by the Majority Leader or his designee in the motion 
to recess or adjourn, or until noon on the second day after Members are 
notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 
resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble 
whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

            Passed the House of Representatives August 6, 1993.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### CANADIAN RIVER GAS COMPANY, Appellant, v. Mary E. BIVINS et al., Appellees.

No. 5069.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.

Sept. 8, 1941.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 6, 1941.

Adkins, Pipkin, Madden & Keffer, of Amarillo, for appellant.

Underwood, Johnson, Dooley & Wilson, of Amarillo, for appellees.

JACKSON, Chief Justice.

The appellees, Mary E. Bivins, Miles G. Bivins and Julian L. Bivins, individually and as independent executrix and executors of the will and estate of Lee Bivins, deceased, and Miles G. and Julian L. Bivins also as trustees, instituted this suit in the County Court of Potter County to recover against the appellant, Canadian River Gas Company, a corporation, the sum of $394.69 claimed to be due them as gas royalty of one cent per thousand cubic foot of gas produced from November 1, 1936 to November 30, 1937 on certain acreage on which appellees were the royalty owners and the appellant the assignee of the lessee.

The appellant answered by general demurrer and general denial. The court overruled the demurrer; appellant excepted to such ruling, withdrew its general denial, agreed that the facts alleged in appellees’ petition were true and stated that it would stand on its general demurrer.

*288On the agreement that the facts alleged by appellees were true and correct the court rendered judgment for appellees for the sum of $394.69 with interest and from this judgment the appellant appeals.

There were no fact issues to be determined and this court certified the two legal questions involved in the appeal to the Supreme Court for its determination.

The opinion of the Supreme Court in answer to the questions certified published in 153 S.W.2d 432 to which opinion reference is here made discloses the facts necessary to fully understand the law questions presented for review.

On the holdings of the Supreme Court in the opinion supra the judgment of the trial court is reversed and here rendered that ap-pellees take nothing by their suit and that appellant go hence with its costs. The judgment of the trial court is therefore reversed and rendered.
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 13

- 00027

- CV

WILLIAM R. AND SUSAN M. KNODERER, Appellant s

V.

STATE FARM LLOYDS, PENNI PERKINS AND TOM ROBERTS, Appellee s

On Appeal from the 354th District Court

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court No. 74,037

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.2 

### O RDER

As part of the appellate record in this matter, original exhibits were transferred to this

Court for our use when this appeal was before us. Specifically, original documents marked

“Exhibit 31” were transferred to this Court. It appears to this Court that t he proper repository for

these exhibits should be the Hunt County D istrict C lerk ’ s O ffice. Accordingly, we order the

clerk of this Court to transfer the original exhibits filed in this appeal into the keeping of the

Hunt County D istrict C lerk by mailing t he exhibits to the district clerk via certified mail, return

receipt requested.

We further order the Hunt County District Clerk, Stacey Landrum , on receipt of said

exhibits, to sign and return to this Court the enclosed receipt for said exhibits.

IT IS S O ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: January 9 , 20153 RECEIPT FOR ORIGINAL EXHIBITS

I, Stacey Landrum

, Hunt County District Clerk, hereby acknowledge receipt of the

following original exhibits from the Court of Appeals, Sixth Judicial District, Texarkana, Texas,

in the case of William R. and Susan M. Knoderer v. State Farm Lloyds, Penni Perkins and Tom

Roberts , appella te cause number 06

- 13

- 000 27

- CV and trial court cause number 74,037: original

documents marked “Exhibit 31

. ”

___________________________________ Stacey Landrum

Hunt County District Clerk

Date :
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.2(b)


                             RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS



     FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of Mutual Releases of all claims hereby
acknowledged, the undersigned being of lawful age, do for Genesis Residential
Healthcare, (A California Corporation) Inc., and E-Net Financial Corporation, (A
Nevada Corporation) each officer and director as agents and individuals, heirs,
executors, administrators and assigns, hereby fully release, acquit and forever
discharge each Corporation, their attorneys, counselors at law, officers and
directors, agents, insurance companies and corporations, from any and all
actions, causes of action, claims, demands, damages, costs, loss of services,
expenses, compensation, and unknown potential future damages or injuries
resulting from or to result from or by reason of any acts or omissions on the
part of said Releases occurring at any time prior hereto.

     It is understood and agreed that all rights under Section 1542 of the Civil
Code California which provides as follows:

            "CERTAIN CLAIMS NOT AFFECTED BY GENERAL RELEASE... . .A GENERAL
          RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR
          SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE.
          WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS SETTLEMENT
          WITH THE DEBTOR" are hereby EXPRESSLY WAIVED.

     We hereby declare and represent that any damages sustained are uncertain
and indefinite, and in making this Release and Agreement, it is understood and
agreed that we rely wholly upon our judgement, belief and knowledge of the
nature and extent of said damage, if any and that we have not been influenced to
any extent whatsoever in making this Release by any representations or
statements regarding said damages, or regarding any other matters, made by the
Releases or by any person or persons representing them.


<PAGE>

     We hereby declare and represent that the undersigned is executing this
release after having been recommended to and had an opportunity to receive full
legal advice as to our rights from legal counsel.

     This Release contains the ENTIRE AGREEMENT and understanding concerning the
subject matter between the parties and supersedes and replaces all prior
negotiations and proposed agreements, written or oral.  Each of the parties
hereto acknowledges that: no other party has made any promise, representation
or warranty whatsoever, express or implied, not contained herein, concerning the
subject matter hereof, to induce them to execute this Release in reliance
thereon.



Genesis Residential Healthcare, Inc.


Dated 12/2/99                           By: /s/ William W. Ashby
      ---------                             -----------------------
                                            Releaser

e-Net Financial Corporation

Dated 12/2/99                           By: /s/ Michael P. Roth
      ---------                             -----------------------
                                            Releaser