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



THIRD AMENDMENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT,  WAIVER, CONSENT AND FORBEARANCE AGREEMENT
 THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT, WAIVER, CONSENT AND FORBEARANCE AGREEMENT Amendment WELLS FARGO FOOTHILL, INC., PCA LLC, Borrower Borrowers
 RECITALS
 Credit Agreement
 Reporting Event of Default Anticipated Qualification Event of Default Financial Statement Defaults
 Goldman Payment Goldman Event of
Default Goldman 3 4 Goldman Purchase Agreement
 Agfa
Forbearance Agfa Indebtedness




---



##### 



AGREEMENT
  Amendments to Credit Agreement
    BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP
 Waiver of Financial Statement Defaults provided however
 Agreement to Forbear
 
        Forbearance Term
 Termination of Agreement to Forbear
 Release: Covenant Not to Sue
 Released Party




---



##### 



Amendment Fee Amendment Fee
 Effectiveness of this Amendment
 Amendment; Acknowledgements and Releases
 Amendment Fee
 Representations and Warranties
 Other Required Documentation
 Conditions Subsequent
   Consent
 Representations and Warranties
 Authority
 Enforceability




---



##### 



Representations and Warranties
 Due Execution
 No Default
 No Duress
 Counsel
 Choice of Law, etc
 Counterparts
 Reference to and Effect on the Loan Documents
    
        Ratification and Reaffirmation
 Integration
 Severability
 Incorporation of Recitals
 Submission of Amendment




---



##### 



BORROWERS:
    
    PCA LLC,a Delaware limited liability companyBy:
    
    /s/ [ILLEGIBLE]Its:
    
    EVP & SecretaryAMERICAN STUDIOS, INC.,a North Carolina corporationBy:
    
    /s/ [ILLEGIBLE]Its:
    
    EVP & SecretaryPCA PHOTO CORPORATION OF CANADA, INC.,a North Carolina corporationBy:
    
    /s/ [ILLEGIBLE]Its:
    
    EVP & SecretaryPCA NATIONAL LLC,a Delaware limited liability companyBy:
    
    /s/ [ILLEGIBLE]Its:
    
    EVP & Secretary




---



##### 



HOMETOWN THREADS LLC,a Delaware limited liability companyBy:
    
    /s/ [ILLEGIBLE]Its:
    
    EVP & Secretary
 PCA NATIONAL OF TEXAS L.P.,a Texas limited partnershipBy:
    
    PCA NATIONAL LLC,a Delaware limited liability companyIts:
    
    General PartnerBy:
    
    /s/ [ILLEGIBLE]Its:
    
    EVP & Secretary
 AGENT AND A LENDER:
    
    WELLS FARGO FOOTHILL, INC.,a California corporationBy:Its:




---



##### 



HOMETOWN THREA DS LLC,a Delaware limited liability companyBy:Its:
 PCA NATIONAL OF TEXAS L.P.,a Texas limited partnershipBy:
    
    PCA NATIONAL LLC,a Delaware limited liability companyIts:
    
    General PartnerBy:Its:
 AGENT AND A LENDER:
    
    WELLS FARGO FOOTHILL, INC.,a California corporationBy:
    
    /s/ [ILLEGIBLE]Its:
    
    Vice President




---



##### 



ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND RELEASE BY GUARANTORS
 Amendment




---



##### 



PORTRAIT CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC.,a Delaware corporationBy:
    
    /s/ [ILLEGIBLE]Its:
    
    EVP & SecretaryPCA FINANCE CORP.,a Delaware corporationBy:
    
    /s/ [ILLEGIBLE]Its:
    
    EVP & SecretaryPHOTO CORPORATION OF AMERICA,a North Carolina corporationBy:
    
    /s/ [ILLEGIBLE]Its:
    
    EVP & Secretary
Letterhead of Price Waterhouse LLP

                        Report of Independent Accountants

January 28, 1998

To the Board of Directors and Shareholder of
H.T. Components U.S.A., Inc.

In our opinion, the accompanying balance sheet and the related statements of
operations and accumulated deficit and of cash flows present fairly, in all
material respects, the financial position of H.T. Components U.S.A., Inc. (a
subsidiary of H.T.C., Ltd.) at December 31, 1997, and the results of its
operations and its cash flows for the year in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles. These financial statements are the responsibility of the
Company's management; our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit of these
statements in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards which
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about
whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit
includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and
disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles
used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall
financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a
reasonable basis for the opinion expressed above.

H.T. Components U.S.A., Inc. is a member of group of affiliated companies and,
as disclosed in note 3 to the financial statements, has extensive transactions
and relationships with members of the group. Because of these relationships, it
is possible that the terms of these transactions are not the same as those that
would result from transactions among wholly unrelated parties.


/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

LESTER BAILEY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-2630

[November 15, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Paul L. Backman, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 062014CF011174A88810.

Lester Bailey, Madison, pro se. 

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, CONNER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 32.1

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 this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Pep BoysManny, Moe & Jack (the
"Company") for the year ended January 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),

I,
Michael R. Odell, Principal Executive 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 my knowledge:



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Date: April 12, 2010

by:

/s/ MICHAEL R. ODELL Michael R. Odell Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)


---
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20-13621

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

HOSSENI TABARESTANI, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WALMART, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 0:18-cv-62963-LSS

____________________

USCA11 Case: 20-13621 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 20-13621

Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Hossein Tabarestani brought a negligence action against 

Walmart, Inc. based on injuries Tabarestani sustained from a slip 

and fall on the premises of a Sam’s Club located in Bluffton, South 

Carolina. After a three-day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict 

in favor of Walmart. Subsequently, Tabarestani filed post-trial 

motions for a new trial and relief from judgment. The magistrate 

judge1 denied both motions in a thorough Omnibus Order on 

Post-Trial Motions. 2 

Tabarestani asserts the district court erred in five ways: 

(1) in ruling there was no fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct 

by Walmart; (2) by not admitting Walmart’s internal policies and 

procedures and Walmart’s answers to Tabarestani’s interrogatories; (3) in not compelling Walmart Manager Christopher Graft’s 

attendance at trial at Walmart’s expense; (4) in excluding OSHA 

regulations as evidence of negligence; and (5) in substantially 

adopting Walmart’s proposed jury instructions and in substantially adopting Walmart’s submitted verdict form. 

1 On January 3, 2019, the parties consented to conduct all further proceedings in front of a United States Magistrate Judge. 

2 The Omnibus Order also denied Tabarestani’s motion to conduct interviews with jurors and granted Walmart’s motion to tax costs. These rulings 

are not at issue on appeal. 

USCA11 Case: 20-13621 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 2 of 3
20-13621 Opinion of the Court 3

After review, we conclude Tabarestani’s arguments are 

meritless and affirm for the reasons stated in the magistrate 

judge’s thorough and well-reasoned Omnibus Order of August 

29, 2020. We note as to his fraud claim, Tabarestani contends 

that a Walmart security video that he introduced into evidence at 

trial was fraudulent and does not show him, but rather some other unidentified person, falling in the snow at the Sam’s Club loading dock on January 7, 2018. As the magistrate judge reasoned, 

the jury was charged with finding the facts based on their assessment of the evidence, including the credibility of witnesses. 

Tabarestani claimed at trial that he was not shown in the video, 

but the jury rejected that argument. As the district court stated, 

Tabarestani has shown “no clear and convincing evidence of 

fraud or fraud on the court.”

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 20-13621 Date Filed: 03/24/2022 Page: 3 of 3
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-50789

Conference Calendar

 

JOHN LACEY MALONE, JR.,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

SLADE, Warden, Warden of F.C.I. La Tuna & F.P.C. La Tuna,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-97-CV-279

- - - - - - - - - -

June 16, 1998

Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John Lacey Malone, Jr., federal prisoner # 52209-080,

appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging

the Bureau of Prison’s refusal to consider him eligible for a

reduction to his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B). He

argues that the BOP’s policy of not considering eligible

prisoners convicted of drug trafficking offenses for which the

sentences were enhanced under the Sentencing Guidelines for

possession of a firearm is an impermissible interpretation of 
No. 97-50789

-2-

§ 3621(e)(2)(B)’s “nonviolent offense.” His argument is

foreclosed by this court’s decision in Venegas v. Henman, 126

F.3d 760, 763-65 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1679

(1998).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 11

                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE




                                            DECEMBER 31
                           ------------------------------------------
                               1998            1997            1996
                               ----            ----            ----

NET INCOME (LOSS)          $(1,017,170)    $(2,259,251)    $   68,279



WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF
COMMON SHARES
OUTSTANDING                  1,604,163       1,604,163      1,608,163
                           -----------     -----------     ----------



BASIC NET INCOME (LOSS)
PER COMMON                 $      (.63)    $     (1.41)    $      .04
                           ===========     ===========     ==========


For the years ended December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996 there was no dilutive
effect for stock options.


                                       14
# C_2022142EN.01001101.xml

| 30.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/11

---

Networking of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA’s) mission

(2022/C 142/03)

Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (1), Article 36(2), provides that the European Food Safety Authority’s ‘Management Board, acting on a proposal from the Executive Director, shall draw up a list to be made public of competent organisations designated by the Member States which may assist the Authority, either individually or in networks, with its mission.’

The list was first drawn up by EFSA’s Management Board on 19 December 2006, and since then is:

| i. | updated regularly, on the basis of proposals from EFSA’s Executive Director, taking account of reviews or new designation proposals from the Member States (in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 2230/2004, Article 2(4) (2)), and |
| --- | --- |

i.

updated regularly, on the basis of proposals from EFSA’s Executive Director, taking account of reviews or new designation proposals from the Member States (in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 2230/2004, Article 2(4) (2)), and

| ii. | made public on EFSA’s website, where the latest updated list of competent organisations is published. |
| --- | --- |

ii.

made public on EFSA’s website, where the latest updated list of competent organisations is published.

This respective information is available on the EFSA website, at the following locations:

| i. | the latest amendment to the list of competent organisations by EFSA’s Management Board on 24 March 2022 – |
| --- | --- |

i.

the latest amendment to the list of competent organisations by EFSA’s Management Board on 24 March 2022 –

[https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/events/90th-management-board-web-meeting], and

| ii. | the updated list of competent organisations – http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/partnersnetworks/scorg. |
| --- | --- |

ii.

the updated list of competent organisations – http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/partnersnetworks/scorg.

EFSA will keep this Notice updated, specifically regarding the provided website links.

For more information please contact Cooperation.Article36@efsa.europa.eu.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2230/2004 of 23 December 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 with regard to the network of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority’s mission (OJ L 379, 24.12.2004, p. 64), as last amended.

---
In the Court of Criminal 

Appeals of Texas

══════════

No. WR-28,073-02

══════════

EX PARTE JAMES HARRY REYOS,

Applicant

═══════════════════════════════════════

On Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus

In Cause No. A-14,583-B

In the 70th District Court

Ector County

═══════════════════════════════════════

YEARY, J., filed a concurring opinion.

Applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to thirty-eight 

years’ imprisonment in 1983. His conviction was affirmed by the Eighth 

Court of Appeals the following year. Reyos v. State, No. 08-83-0026-CR 

(Tex. App.—El Paso, Nov. 21, 1984). Applicant made this application 

this year, in 2023, on the grounds that new evidence proves he is 
REYOS – 2

actually innocent. 

Today the Court grants Applicant post-conviction habeas relief 

based on his claim of actual innocence. In my view, Applicant has 

satisfied the burden established in Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1996). The new fingerprint evidence alone is enough to 

reach that conclusion. Where my thinking differs is that the Court 

declares Applicant to be “actually innocent” by virtue of meeting this 

standard alone. For reasons that I have expressed before, I disagree with 

the Court’s use of the term “actually innocent” when granting relief 

under Elizondo; simply satisfying the Elizondo burden is not enough to 

prove literal “actual innocence.” See Ex parte Cacy, 543 S.W.3d 802, 803 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (Yeary, J., concurring) (“The Elizondo standard, 

on its face, does not really focus on innocence per se. It is, instead, an 

exceedingly high burden by which an applicant must show that, if newly 

available evidence were added to the evidentiary mix, no reasonable jury 

would have found the State’s case to have been compelling enough to 

defeat the systemic presumption of innocence.”).

Because I am persuaded Applicant has met his burden under 

Elizondo, I respectfully concur.

FILED: October 4, 2023

DO NOT PUBLISH
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6487

TERRY D. DAVIS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

R.H. MAUNEY, Warden, Livesay Correctional Institution,

Respondent – Appellee,

and

SOUTH CAROLINA, THE STATE OF,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Aiken. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District 

Judge. (1:15-cv-00307-JFA)

Submitted: September 13, 2016 Decided: September 15, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry D. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Terry D. Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate 

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate 

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable 

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the 

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Davis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 
3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

LR/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VERONICA GASGA SIERRA; CIRILO

ANTONIO SIERRA VASQUEZ,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-74375

Agency Nos. A075-476-095

 A075-475-327

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 11, 2010** 

Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Veronica Gasga Sierra and Cirilo Antonio Sierra Vasquez, natives and

citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 

FILED

JAN 21 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
LR/Research 2 07-74375

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to 

reopen, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny 

the petition for review.

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely petitioners’ 

motion to reopen because it was filed more than 90 days after the BIA’s final

removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners did not show that they 

acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Singh v. Gonzales, 

491 F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2007). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
DANIEL RAY DOTSON

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 4390

______ _______________________/

Opinion filed January 14, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Edward P. Nickinson, III , Judge

.

Daniel Ray Dotson, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Giselle D. Lylen, Assistant Att orney

General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

PADOVANO, CLARK, and MARSTILLER, JJ., CONCUR.
Record of Discussion Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD

With whom outside the FAA has this action been discussed (i
.e., Design Approval Holder, manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)?

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED Boeing Multiple persons Multiple dates Other. List below. Goodrich Rollin Brown 10112/2012 Other. List below.

Other /Additional Information: Boeing: Nature and cost ofFQIS redesign to fully address FQIS latent-plus-one issues, concept and cost for optional cargo airplane actions, timing for availability of service bulletins for optional cargo airplane actions. Goodrich: Nature and cost of FQIS redesign to fully address FQIS latent-plus-one issues.