alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10-2.htm


Exhibit 10.2

 

AMENDMENT

TO

MASTER SECURITY AGREEMENT

DATED AS OF APRIL 23, 2012 AND

PROGRESS PAYMENT AGREEMENT DATED AS OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2015

 

THIS AMENDMENT ("Amendment") amends and supplements the above agreements (the collectively, the "Agreement"), each between General Electric Capital Corporation, together with its successors and assigns, if any ("Secured Party") and Apio, Inc. ("Debtor") and is hereby incorporated into the Agreement as though fully set forth therein. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement. The Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

 

1. Secured Party and Debtor hereby acknowledge and agree each and every Progress Payment Loan, and the documents and obligations related thereto, constitute an “Equipment Loan Supplement” for purposes of that certain Credit Agreement dated as of April 23, 2012, as amended from time to time, by and among, Debtor, Cal Ex Trading Company, and Greenline Logistics, Inc., the other “Credit Parties” thereto, General Electric Capital Corporation, in its role thereunder as Agent for the “Lenders” named therein, and the other financial institutions party thereto as “Lenders”.

 

Except as expressly modified hereby, all terms and provisions of the Agreement and the other Debt Documents shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect. This Amendment is not binding or effective with respect to the Agreement until executed on behalf of Secured Party and Debtor by authorized representatives of such parties.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Secured Party and Debtor have caused this Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the ___ day of ________________________, 2015.

 

	Secured Party:	
 
	
Debtor:  
	
 

	General Electric Capital Corporation	 	APIO, INC.	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	
 
	
 
	
By: 
	
 
	
 

	Name:	
 
	
 
	
Name: 
	
 
	
 

	Title:	
 
	
 
	
Title: 
	
 
	
 



      

 

GUARANTOR’S CONSENT AND CONFIRMATION OF GUARANTY

 

The undersigned has read the foregoing and hereby consents to the terms and conditions thereof. The undersigned further consents, agrees and affirms, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, that the continuing Guaranty, dated as of April 23, 2012, made and delivered by the undersigned in favor of General Electric Capital Corporation, is hereby reaffirmed in all respects and remains and shall remain in full force and effect without variance, qualification, discharge, or diminution by reason of the foregoing or otherwise.

 

LANDEC CORPORATION

 

 

By: _______________________________________

Title: ______________________________________

Date:______________________________________
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON ORDER TO HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK TO PREPARE~ CERTIFY~ AND FILE SUPPLEMENTAL CLERK’S RECORD 

### Appellate case name: Appellate case number: Trial court case number: In re Salverson 01-12-00384-CV 2010-31668 Our complete review of the above-referenced appeal requires a supplemental clerk’s record including the following document:

 ̄ March 11, 2012 order granting motion to non-suit case (Final Order). This supplemental clerk’s record is due to be filed in the First Court of Appeals no later than July 20, 2012. Judge’s signature:/s/Jane Bland [] Acting individually Acting for the Court Date: July 12, 2012
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.
TERRY LEE O’BRIEN , Petitioner

. N o . 1 CA

- CR 18

- 0650 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2014

- 156235

- 001 The Honorable Teresa A. Sanders , Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa C ounty Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Terry Lee O’Brien, Kingman Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones, Vice Chief Judge Peter B. Swann , and Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court. FILED 1-3-2019STATE v. O’BRIEN Decision of the Court

2 P E R C U R I A M : ¶1 Terry O’Brien seeks review of the superior court’s order dismissing his petition for post

- conviction reli ef , filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is the petitioner’s fourth successive petition

. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this Court will not disturb a superior court’s rulin g on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 576

- 77, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion in denying the petition. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court’s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the pe tition for review. We find that the petitioner has not shown any abuse of discretion. ¶4 Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.
Structure of

9-Octadecen-1-amine,hydrochloride (1:1), (9Z)-

CAS No.:41130-29-4

Synonyms : 9-Octadecen-1-amine,hydrochloride, (9Z)- (9CI); 9-Octadecen-1-amine, 

hydrochloride, (Z)-;Oleylamine hydrochloride

Molecular Formula : C18H37 N . Cl H

SMILES : CCCCCCCCC=CCCCCCCCCN(CL)

Molecular Weight : 303.95402

Alternate structure as depicted in CAS - STN
Case: 3:17-mj-00542-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/21/17 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 1
Case: 3:17-mj-00542-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/21/17 Page: 2 of 10 PAGEID #: 2
Case: 3:17-mj-00542-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/21/17 Page: 3 of 10 PAGEID #: 3
Case: 3:17-mj-00542-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/21/17 Page: 4 of 10 PAGEID #: 4
Case: 3:17-mj-00542-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/21/17 Page: 5 of 10 PAGEID #: 5
Case: 3:17-mj-00542-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/21/17 Page: 6 of 10 PAGEID #: 6
Case: 3:17-mj-00542-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/21/17 Page: 7 of 10 PAGEID #: 7
Case: 3:17-mj-00542-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/21/17 Page: 8 of 10 PAGEID #: 8
Case: 3:17-mj-00542-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/21/17 Page: 9 of 10 PAGEID #: 9
Case: 3:17-mj-00542-SLO Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/21/17 Page: 10 of 10 PAGEID #: 10
UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

                                  FORM 10-QSB/A

                                   (Mark One)
[X] QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
                                   ACT OF 1934

                       For the quarter ended June 30, 2003

                                       OR

[_] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
                                   ACT OF 1934

    For the transition period from _____________ to _____________ Commission

                              file number 333-40738

                              SPEAR & JACKSON, INC.
                          ----------------------------
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)



               Nevada                                     91-2037081
       ---------------------                            ---------------
    (State of other jurisdiction                     (I.R.S. Employer
  of incorporation or organization)                Identification Number)

    2200 Corporate Boulevard, Suite 314
       Boca Raton, Florida                                33431
 --------------------------------------                  --------
(Address of principal executive offices)                (Zip Code)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code: 561-999-9011


        Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None

           Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
                     Common Stock, par value $.001 per share

Indicate by checkmark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required
to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during
the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was
required to file such report(s)), and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes X No

Registrant had 12,011,122 shares of Common Stock, $.001 par value per share
outstanding as of July 31, 2003.





<PAGE>

Item 6.  Exhibits and Reports on Form 8-K

(a)  Exhibits


31.1 - Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification of Chief Executive Officer of the
       Company.

31.2 - Rule 13a-15(a)/15d-14(a) Certification of Chief Financial Officer of the
       Company.

(b)  Reports on Form 8-K

None.


                                       2
<PAGE>



                                   SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed
on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorised.

SPEAR & JACKSON, INC.



By:      /s/Dennis Crowley              Dated: August 19, 2003
         ----------------
         Dennis Crowley
         Chief Executive Officer











                                       22
October 4 , 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MICHAEL LAWRENCE TAP LIN , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 00694

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The record indicates that the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.
We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### Adelbert C. Martin v. William B. Tripp, assessor, etc.

*Mandamus*— Payment *of interest on school orders.*

Mandamus to compel a school district assessor to pay a school order was allowed where the Court was satisfied there was no valid defense.

Interest from the time of demand maybe allowed in granting mandamus for the payment of a school order when it is such a settled demand as would sustain a recovery of interest at law.

Mandamus.

Submitted June 19.

Granted June 20.

*Hughes db Smiley*for the writ.

*185
      *L. A. Tabor*against.

This is a motion for a mandamus to compel the respondent to pay an order issued to the plaintiff by the proper school officers of the district, in payment for .services as a teacher, and which respondent, at a time when he had money in his hands applicable for the purpose, refused to pay. Various defenses were set up,— among them a violation of contract by the relator, irregularity in the making of the contract, and a vote of the district not to pay.

The Court being satisfied there was no valid defense, ordered that the writ should issue; and as the order was such .a settled demand as interest would be recoverable upon at ,law, interest was allowed from the time of demand.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

TERRY GUNSAULEY, 

Defendant. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

:

Case No. 3:18-mj-0004 

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington 

REMOVAL AND COMMITMENT ORDER 

This case came to be heard pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(c)(3). Defendant herein 

was arrested in this District on a warrant issued upon an Indictment in the United States 

District of South Carolina, in Case No. 3:10-CR-582-CMC (7). Defendant appeared in 

open Court on January 4, 2018, and after being advised of his rights, waived his right to 

an identity hearing, preliminary hearing and a detention hearing. 

IT IS ORDERED THAT THE DEFENDANT BE REMOVED TO THE 

United States District Court of South Carolina for all further proceedings as ordered by 

that court. 

TO THE UNITED STATES MARSHAL: 

You are hereby commanded to take custody of the above-named Defendant and to 

transport that Defendant with a copy of this commitment forthwith to the district of 

offense as specified above and there deliver the Defendant to the Unites States Marshal 
2 

for that District or to some other officer authorized to receive the Defendant, all 

proceedings required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 5 having been completed. 

January 5, 2018 s/Sharon L. Ovington 

 Sharon L. Ovington 

 United States Magistrate Judge
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# TIME AND DATE: 

2:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 13, 2022.

# PLACE:

The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

# STATUS:

This meeting will be closed to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.

                        In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at                         *https://www.sec.gov*.                    

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.

The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the following topics:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;

                        Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;                              ( print page 1247)    

Resolution of litigation claims; and

Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

*Authority:*5 U.S.C. 552b.                    

Dated: January 6, 2022.

Vanessa A. Countryman,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-00319 Filed 1-6-22; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
#### Lawson *v.*State.

5-903

288 S. W. 2d 585

Opinion delivered April 2, 1956.

*Ovid T. Switzer*and *W. P. Switzer,*for appellant.

*Tom Gentry,*Attorney General and *Thorp Thomas,*Asst. Atty. General, for appellee.

George Rose Smith, J.

This is a civil action brought by the prosecuting attorney to have the appellant’s place of business declared to be a public nuisance. Ark. Stats. 1947, §§ 34-111 *et seq.*The trial court found the place to be a nuisance and entered an order directing that it be closed and that Lawson and all other persons be enjoined “from operating the said place for any purposes whatsoever for a period of one year from this date.”

The establishment in question, known as Sam Lawson’s Cafe, is situated on a highway west of Cróssett. It is shown that Lawson keeps a music machine and permits couples to dance, which brings the cafe within the *171statutory definition of a dance hall. Ark. Stats., § 34-111. The State’s evidence shows that the establishment is noisy, that it is frequented by intoxicated persons although the county is dry, that empty whiskey bottles accumulate outside the building, that Lawson has been convicted for the possession of liquor for sale in his home nearby, that male patrons have been guilty of indecent exposure on the public road, that one girl was shot in the cafe, that fights have occurred there, and that it is the kind of place that breeds law violations. The defense testimony tends to show that Lawson has attempted in good faith to conduct an orderly place of business, that he is unable to control the actions of his patrons as strictly as-he would like to, and that the cafe is no more objectionable than similar establishments in the vicinity. Upon reviewing the proof we do not find the circuit court’s conclusions to be contrary to the preponderance of the evidence, which is the test to be applied in this proceeding. *Alston*v. *State,*216 Ark. 604, 226 S. W. 2d 988.

In one respect, however, the court’s order is too broad. The statute contemplates that the initial order shall merely abate the nuisance. Ark. Stats., § 34-117. The more severe course of closing the establishment for a year is authorized only in a contempt proceeding for a violation of the initial injunctive order. Ark. Stats., § 34-118; *Futrell*v. *State,*207 Ark. 452, 181 S. W. 2d 680; *State ex rel. Atty. Gen.*v. *Williams,*222 Ark. 966, 264 S. W. 2d 417. The order will therefore be modified, in accordance with the *Williams*case, to enjoin Lawson from using the property or permitting it to be used for dancing or for the sale of intoxicants for a period of one year from the date of the trial court’s order. The Attorney General concedes that the order should be modified but asks that the limited injunction be made perpetual, citing the *Williams*case. Here, however, the State did not appeal and therefore is not entitled to affirmative relief going beyond the scope of the circuit court’s judgment.

Affirmed, as modified.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4275 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4275

 To designate the annex building under construction for the Elbert P. 
Tuttle United States Court of Appeals Building in Atlanta, Georgia, as 
the ``John C. Godbold United States Judicial Administration Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 10, 2009

Mr. Lewis of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Scott of 
 Georgia, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Barrow, Mr. Deal of 
    Georgia, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Gingrey of Georgia, Mr. Price of 
Georgia, Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mr. Kingston, and Mr. Linder) introduced 
      the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the annex building under construction for the Elbert P. 
Tuttle United States Court of Appeals Building in Atlanta, Georgia, as 
the ``John C. Godbold United States Judicial Administration Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The annex building under construction for the United States 
courthouse located 56 Forsyth Street in Atlanta, Georgia, know as the 
Elbert P. Tuttle United States Court of Appeals Building, shall be 
known and designated as the ``John C. Godbold United States Judicial 
Administration Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the annex building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``John C. Godbold 
United States Judicial Administration Building''.
                                 <all>
```
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4189 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to accelerate the phasein 

of the deduction for domestic production activities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 3, 2009 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to accelerate 

the phasein of the deduction for domestic production 

activities. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ACCELERATING THE PHASEIN OF DOMESTIC 

4 PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES DEDUCTION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) of section 199 of 

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to allowance 

7 of deduction) is amended to read as follows: 

8 ‘‘(a) ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION.—There shall be 

9 allowed as a deduction an amount equal to 9 percent of 

10 the lesser of— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4189 IH

1 ‘‘(1) the qualified production activities income 

2 of the taxpayer for the taxable year, or 

3 ‘‘(2) taxable income (determined without regard 

4 to this section) for the taxable year.’’. 

5 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Paragraph (2) of 

6 section 199(d) of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘sub7 section (a)(1)(B)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (a)(2)’’. 

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

9 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

10 December 31, 2008. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

MELODIE SANBORN,
Case No. 2:17-cv-875

Plaintiff, CHIEF JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura

v.
DENTALONE PARTNERS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the United States Magistrate Judge’s April 6, 2018
Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.
The Report and Recommendation advised the parties that failure to object within fourteen days
would result in a waiver of review. The time period for objections has run, and no party has
objected. Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 18). For the reasons set forth in that document, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion
to Remand (ECF No. 11) and REMANDS this action to the Franklin County, Ohio, Court of
Common Pleas. The Court declines to award Plaintiff attomey fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. §
1447(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Y-)% - hol?

DATE EDMUNB.ADSARGUS, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE