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


                                                               EXHIBIT 10(c)(12)


               AMENDMENT ELEVEN TO INSURANCE PROCESSING AGREEMENT

This document is Amendment Nine to the Insurance Processing Agreement
("Agreement"), made and entered into effective June 1, 1993, and amended by
Amendment One to Insurance Processing Agreement dated June 4, 1998; Amendment
Two to Insurance Processing Agreement dated September 25, 1998; Amendment Three
to Insurance Processing Agreement dated October 19, 1998; Amendment Four to
Insurance Processing Agreement dated December 15, 1998, Amendment Five to
Insurance Processing Agreement dated March 25, 1999, Amendment Six to Insurance
Processing Agreement dated May 10, 1999, Amendment Seven to Insurance Processing
Agreement dated June 24, 1999, Amendment Eight to Insurance Processing Agreement
dated August 5, 1999, Amendment Nine to Insurance Processing Agreement dated
October 1, 1999, and Amendment Ten to Insurance Processing Agreement dated
January 31, 2000, (the "Agreement"), by and between American National Insurance
Company ("American National") a Texas corporation, and Legacy Insurance
Processing Group ("LMG"), a California corporation.

In consideration of mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as
follows:

1. "Section 6.1" of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and the
   following new Section 6.1 shall be substituted therefore:

"Subject to termination as hereinafter provided, this Agreement shall remain in
force and effect until the close of business on April 30, 2000, the term of this
Agreement. This Agreement may be renewed by mutual agreement for additional
successive terms of one (1) year unless terminated by either party by prior
written notice to the other at least one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the
end of the initial term or the renewal term."

Except as specifically amended hereby, all terms and provisions of the Insurance
Processing Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement.


LEGACY MARKETING GROUP                  AMERICAN NATIONAL INSURANCE
                                        COMPANY


By: /s/ DAVID A. SKUP                   By: /s/ DEBRA KNOWLES
   --------------------------------        -----------------------------------

Title: Chief Financial Officer          Title: Assistant Vice President
      -----------------------------           --------------------------------

Witness: /s/ SANDY LOPES                Witness: /s/ NICOLE ABRAHAM
        ---------------------------             ------------------------------

Date:         3/1/00                    Date:   2/29/00
     ------------------------------          ---------------------------------
#### PICKARD v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 317.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

July 15, 1940.

For opinion below, see 40 B.T.A. 258.

Llewellyn A. Luce, of Washington, D. G, and Perry W. Shrader, of Kansas City, Mo., for petitioner.

Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Sewell Key, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., and Richard H. Demuth, Sp. Atty., of Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before SWAN, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and PATTERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The taxpayer contracted to sell 300 shares of Station stock for $175,200, a price greatly in excess of its cost. For the admitted purpose of avoiding a tax on tjie profit he would realize if paid in cash, he engaged in an elaborate series of transactions which resulted in giving him $3,700 in cash and the stock of two newly created corporations whose assets consisted of United States Treasury notes equal in value to the balance of the purchase price of the Station stock. He contends that he is relieved from tax because each of the steps in his elaborate plan is a non-taxable transaction within one or more' of the provisions of section 112 of the Revenue Act of 1928, 45 Stat. 791, 816, 26 U.S.C.A.Int.Rev. Acts, p. 377. The Board found that the various steps were but component parts of the single transaction of transferring the Station shares to the- purchaser for $175,-200, and correctly ruled that a single transaction carried out in accordance with a preconceived plan cannot be split up into its component parts for tax purposes. Minnesota Tea Co. v. Helvering, 302 U.S. 609, 613, 58 S.Ct. 393, 82 L.Ed. 474; Bassick v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 85 F.2d 8, 10, certiorari denied, 299 U.S. 592, 57 S.Ct. 120, 81 L.Ed. 436. In essence what the petitioner did was to convey his stock to the purchaser through Holding corporation as a conduit and to direct the purchaser to pay $3,700 to him and the balance of the purchase price to his nominee, Holding company, through which it was passed to Sam-pick and Esspick corporations for investment in Treasury notes. Such a transaction does not fall within the non-recognition provisions of section 112. Holding company had no legitimate business purpose; it was merely a conduit. It cannot be deemed a party to a tax-free reorganization. Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465, 55 S.Ct. 266, 79 L.Ed. 596, 97 A.L.R. 1355. Electrical Securities Corp. v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 92 F.2d 593, 595; Hendee v. Commissioner, 7 Cir., 98 F.2d 934, 936. Nor can the petitioner’s exchange of Station shares for shares of Holding corporation be deemed a non-taxable exchange under section 112(b) (5), since the plan necessitated *489that control of Holding be passed to Columbia and this was done within four days.

Order affirmed.
#### EDWARDS v. STATE.

No. 20662.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 18, 1939.

Russell Wolters, of Houston, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is burglary; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for six years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

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.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75937-75938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30901]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals To Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies That Are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec. 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all 
bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information 
Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.

[[Page 75938]]

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than January 2, 2001.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Phillip Jackson, Applications 
Officer) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. FBOP Corporation, Oak Park, Illinois; to acquire 100 percent of 
the voting stock of PBOC Holdings, Inc., Los Angeles, California, and 
thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Peoples Bank of California, 
Los Angeles, California, and thereby engage in operating a savings 
association, pursuant to Sec. 225.28(b)(4)(ii) of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 30, 
2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-30901 Filed 12-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, S. Leslie Flegel, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that the Quarterly Report of Source Interlink Companies, Inc. on Form 10-Q
for the fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in
all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Source Interlink Companies, Inc.


Date: June 9, 2005

                                                        /s/ S. LESLIE FLEGEL
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                      NAME: S. LESLIE FLEGEL
                                                  TITLE: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Ross Systems, Inc. "Company") Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Verome M. Johnston, Chief
Financial Officer (principal financial and accounting officer) of the Company,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

         (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 Company.




Date: September 22, 2003


                                               By:  /s/ Verome M. Johnston
                                               --------------------------------
                                               Name:  Verome M. Johnston
                                               Title: Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6720

RAYMOND ADAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BISHOP ROBINSON, Secretary of Public Safety

and Correctional Services; JOSEPH HENNEBERRY,

Director, Patuxent Institution; PATUXENT BOARD

OF REVIEW,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-94-

1679-L)

Submitted: October 23, 1997 Decided: November 14, 1997

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Stuart Milton Nathan, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's

recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

on the reasoning of the district court. Adams v. Robinson, No. CA94-1679-L (D. Md. Apr. 14, 1997). 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
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families
 AGENCY: Administration for Children, Youth and Families, Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services.
 ACTION: Biennial publication of allotment percentages for States under the Title IV-B subpart 1, Child Welfare Services State Grants Program.
 SUMMARY: As required by section 421(c) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 621(c)), the Department is publishing the allotment percentage for each State under the Title IV-B subpart 1, Child Welfare Services State Grants Program. Under section 421(a), the allotment percentages are one of the factors used in the computation of the Federal grants awarded under the Program.
 EFFECTIVE DATE: The allotment percentages shall be effective for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doris Lee, Office of Management Services, Administration for Children, Youth and Families, Administration for Children and Families, 330 C Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20447.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The allotment percentage for each State is determined on the basis of paragraphs (b) and (c) of section 421 of the Act. These figures are available on the ACF homepage on the internet: 
                    *http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/​programs/​cb/​.*
                     The allotment percentage for each State is as follows: 
                    ( print page 75940) State
Allotment percentageAlabama
59.48Alaska
48.91Arizona
55.89Arkansas
61.01California
48.04Colorado
45.34Connecticut
31.28Delaware
46.32District of Columbia
30.47Florida
50.80Georgia
52.27Hawaii
50.75Idaho
59.88Illinois
45.27Indiana
54.08Iowa
54.58Kansas
52.98Kentucky
59.13Louisiana
59.38Maine
56.91Maryland
43.39Massachusetts
38.66Michigan
50.76Minnesota
46.26Mississippi
63.55Missouri
53.49Montana
61.15Nebraska
52.59Nevada
45.54New Hampshire
45.92New Jersey
37.46New Mexico
61.30New York
40.91North Carolina
53.73North Dakota
59.09Ohio
52.15Oklahoma
59.47Oregon
52.39Pennsylvania
49.81Rhode Island
48.60South Carolina
58.73South Dakota
56.50Tennessee
55.06Texas
52.96Utah
59.18Vermont
54.70Virginia
48.07Washington
47.49West Virginia
62.93Wisconsin
52.03Wyoming
54.03American Samoa
70.00Guam
70.00N. Mariana Islands
70.00Puerto Rico
70.00Virgin Islands
70.00
 Dated: November 27, 2000. Patricia Montoya, Commissioner, Administration for Children, Youth and Families.


[FR Doc. 00-30887  Filed 12-4-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
#### Deborah Antar, Appellant, v Eddie Antar, Respondent.

In an action, *inter alia,*for rescission of a separation agreement and vacatur of a judgment of divorce, entered February 5, 1985, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.), dated June 2, 1989, which denied her motion to enjoin the defendant from "transferring, conveying, assigning, encumbering or removing * * * any of his assets except * * * in the ordinary course of business”.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Upon review of this record, we conclude that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiffs application for injunctive relief. The plaintiff failed to meet her burden of showing the necessity of the relief she requested *(see,*CPLR 6312; *Allmacher v Digiacomo,*153 AD2d 651; *Kurzban & Son v Board of Educ.,*129 AD2d 756). We note that the plaintiff is not entitled to the benefits of the more liberal rules of Domestic Relations Law § 234 concerning preliminary injunctions, since the instant action is not of the type specified in the statute *(see, Drazal v Drazal,*122 AD2d 829; *Leibowits v Leibowits,*93 AD2d 535; *accord, Posman v Posman,*108 AD2d 847). Lawrence, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 13.21

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                      TO

                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                      OF
                                 eFax.com, Inc.


     Pursuant to the provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law
of the State of Delaware, eFax.com, Inc. (the "Corporation"), a corporation
organized and existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of
the State of Delaware, hereby certifies as follows:


FIRST:  The Board of the Corporation, at a regular meeting held on February 23,
1999, adopted resolutions proposing and declaring advisable an amendment to
Article One of the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation to change
the name of the Corporation, and recommending the adoption of such amendment to
the stockholders of the Corporation, such amendment reading in its entirety as
follows:


RESOLVED, that Article One of the Corporation's Certificate of Incorporation be
amended to read as follows:


               "The name of the corporation is:  eFax.com."


     SECOND:  Thereafter, the foregoing amendment to the Certificate of
Incorporation of the Corporation was approved and adopted by the stockholders
of the Corporation at the annual meeting of the stockholders held on May 13,
1999.


     THIRD:  The foregoing amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation of the
Corporation has been duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section
242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.


     FOURTH:  The capital of the Corporation shall not be reduced under or by
reason of said amendment.


     FIFTH.  Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the General Corporation Law of
the State of Delaware, we certify that the Corporation's total assets, as
defined in subsection (i) of Section 503, are not less than $10,000,000.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, eFax.com has caused this Certificate to be executed in its
corporate name by its Chief Executive Officer and attested by its Secretary
dated and effective as of the 16th day of December, 1999.

                                                 eFax.com, Inc.

                                       By:    /s/ EDWARD R. PRINCE, III
                                            ------------------------------
                                                Edward R. Prince, III
                                               Chief Executive Officer

    /s/  TODD J. KENCK
----------------------------
       Todd J. Kenck
        Secretary



                                      60

<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet and statement of income and is qualified in its entirety be reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000872467
<NAME> KRUPP GOVERNMENT INCOME TRUST-II
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      13,520,091
<SECURITIES>                               263,505,968<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,111,153
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,020,512<F2>
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             293,157,724
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,786,654<F3>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   289,864,327
<OTHER-SE>                                     506,743<F4>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               293,157,724
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            21,290,555<F5>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,027,070<F6>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             16,263,485
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         16,263,485
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                16,263,485
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Includes Participating Insured Mortgage Investments ("PIMIs") (insured
mortgages of $145,537,234 and Additional Loans of $29,152,351), Participating
Insured Mortgages ("PIMs") if $37,645,082 and Mortgage-backed Securities
("MBS") of $51,171,301.
<F2>Includes prepaid acquisition fees and expenses of $16,483,642 net of
accumulated amortization of $6,099,180 and prepaid participation servicing fees
of $5,494,547 net of accumulated amortization of $1,858,497.
<F3>Includes deferred income on Additional Loans of $2,755,705.
<F4>Unrealized gain on MBS.
<F5>Represents interest income on investments in mortgages and cash.
<F6>Includes $2,186,556 of amortization of prepaid fees and expenses.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 76338]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31092]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


RTCA, Inc.; Government/Industry Free Flight Steering Committee, 
Revised Agenda

    The December 13 RTCA Free Flight Steering Committee meeting 
announced in the Federal Register, 65 FR 70869 (Tuesday, November 28, 
2000), has been revised.
    The revised agenda reads as follows: The agenda will include: (1) 
Welcome and Opening Remarks; (2) Review Summary of the Previous 
Meeting; (3) Report from FAA: (a) Free Flight Phase 1 Operational 
Assessment Update; (b) End-to-End Checklist for Safe Flight 21 
Applications; (c) FAA Primary En Route Radar Restructuring Program; (4) 
Report and Recommendations from the Free Flight Select Committee: (d) 
National Airspace System Concept of Operations; (e) Addendum 4: Free 
Flight Phase 2; (5) CNS/ATM Focus Team Data Link Report; (6) National 
Airspace System Operational Evolution Plan; (7) Other Business; (8) 
Date and Location of Next Meeting; (9) Closing Remarks.
    Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should 
contact the RTCA, Inc., at (202) 833-9339 (phone), (202) 833-9434 
(facsimile).

    Issued in Washington, DC on November 30, 2000.
Janice L. Peters,
Designated Official.
[FR Doc. 00-31092 Filed 12-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M