alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10(n)

THIRD AMENDMENT TO LOAN AGREEMENT





THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO LOAN AGREEMENT ("Amendment") is entered into as of the 30th day of June, 2002 by and between THE PROVIDENT BANK, an Ohio banking corporation, One East Fourth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 ("Lender") and LCA-VISION INC., a Delaware corporation ("Borrower"), 7840 Montgomery Road, Cincinnati, Ohio 45236.



RECITALS



A.

Lender and Borrower entered into a Loan Agreement on June 29, 1998, which Loan Agreement has been amended by various letter agreements and by an Amendment to Loan Agreement dated as of September 30, 1999, and by a Second Amendment to Loan Agreement dated as of November 30, 2001 (as amended, "Loan Agreement").



B.

The parties desire to modify the terms of the Loan Agreement.



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth herein, all of which are considered to be a part of this Amendment, and the benefits accruing to the parties hereunder, receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged by the parties, it is agreed as follows:



1.

All capitalized terms used herein, unless otherwise defined herein, shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Loan Agreement.



2.

Section 5.25 of the Loan Agreement is hereby deleted and the following substituted therefor:



Tangible Net Worth.  Maintain a minimum consolidated Tangible

Net Worth plus Subordinated Debt of not less than $33,500,000.



3.

All of the terms and conditions contained in the Loan Agreement and all other loan documents ("Loan Documents") evidencing and securing the indebtedness evidenced by the Loan Agreement ("Indebtedness"), except as modified by this Amendment, shall remain unchanged, unimpaired and in full force and effect.  This Amendment is hereby made a part of the original Loan Agreement as completely as if incorporated verbatim therein.



4.

Borrower acknowledges and unconditionally promises to pay the entire Indebtedness as set forth in the Loan Agreement, as amended as set forth herein, and in the Loan Documents.  Borrower reaffirms all covenants and representations set forth in the Loan Agreement and Loan Documents as if such covenants and representations were made as of the date hereof.



5.

This Amendment and the rights and obligations of the parties hereunder shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of Ohio.  This Amendment shall inure to the benefit of and be binding on the respective successors and assigns of the parties hereto.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this Amendment as of the date first above written.



LENDER:



THE PROVIDENT BANK





By:  /s/ Richard E. Wirthlin



Richard E. Wirthlin

Senior Vice President





BORROWER:



LCA-VISION INC.





By: /s/ Alan H. Buckey



Name:  Alan H. Buckey



Title:  CFO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

LA SHAWN PETTUS-BROWN, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. Case No.: 2:18-cv-82 

 JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH 

 Magistrate Judge Jolson 

JIMMY PHELPS, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 ORDER 

On November 14, 2018, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and 

Recommendation and Order recommending that Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Preliminary 

Injunction be denied; Plaintiff’s Second Renewed Motion for Leave of Court to Exceed Allotted 

Discovery be denied without prejudice; and Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Response to Discovery 

Request be denied as moot. (See Report and Recommendation, Doc. 38). The parties were 

advised of their right to object to the Report and Recommendation and Order. This matter is 

now before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation and Order. 

(See Doc. 42). The Court will consider the matter de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

 In his objections, Plaintiff concedes the rulings on the discovery matters, but objects to 

the denial of his motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiff continues to argue that Ohio 

Revised Code §2967.28(F)(3) is unconstitutional, and specifically the imposition of prison 

sentences pursuant to this statute. 
2 

 The Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s arguments raised in his objections and in his 

initial motion and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis in the Report and 

Recommendation and Order. Plaintiff has failed to establish a likelihood of success on the 

merits of his claim, nor any of the other preliminary injunction factors. 

 Therefore, for the reasons stated above and as set forth in detail in the Report and 

Recommendation and Order, this Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are without merit and are 

hereby OVERRULED. 

The Report and Recommendation and Order, Document 38, is ADOPTED and 

AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction is hereby DENIED. 

Plaintiff’s Second Renewed Motion for Leave of Court to Exceed Allotted Discovery is 

DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Response to Discovery Request is 

DENIED as moot. 

The Clerk shall remove Documents 24 and 38 from the Court’s pending motions list. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/ George C. Smith__________________ 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                              618095
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                         559997
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   1178092
<PP&E>                                               18940
<DEPRECIATION>                                        (946)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     2431555
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                52431
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             18979
<OTHER-SE>                                         1302713
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       2431555
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      (470474)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    (218)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          0
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (468745)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (468745)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (0.031)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.027)





</TABLE>
#### Earnest v General Motors Corporation,

No. 90851;

Court of Appeals No. 132673.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4480 

To amend the Community Services Block Grant Act to authorize appropriations for national or regional instructional programs for low-income 

youth. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 20, 2010 

Ms. FUDGE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Community Services Block Grant Act to authorize appropriations for national or regional instructional programs for low-income youth. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Youth Sports 

5 Program Revitalization Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

7 Section 682(g) of the Community Services Block 

8 Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9923(g)) is amended by striking 

9 ‘‘$15,000,000’’ and all that follows through ‘‘2003’’, and 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4480 IH

1 inserting ‘‘$20,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2011 

2 through 2021’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:17-cv-1048

V. Judge Michael H. Watson

Steven A. Wharton, et a/., Magistrate Judge Vascura

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC ("Plaintiff') moves to enforce the

settlement between Plaintiff and Mina L. Dioun and Stonehenge Land Company

(coiiectively, Defendants"). ECF No. 103. In Defendants' response, they

represent that the parties have resolved the underlying dispute and, as a result,

Plaintiffs motion is moot. Resp. 1, ECF No. 110. Defendants also represent that

the parties anticipate finalizing their settiement documents by late October. Id.

The parties are ORDERED to file a notice outlining the status of their

settlement within thirty days, unless they have filed a stipulated dismissal by

that time, in the notice, the parties shall jointly inform the Court whether it still

needs to rule on Plaintiffs motion to enforce settlement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case: 2:17-cv-01048-MHW-CMV Doc #: 111 Filed: 10/17/22 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 1263
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 03, 2022. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, August 03, 2022 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A22D0459. MIA JAMES v. KEVIN R. FARLEY.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: SU22DV0090
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4485 

To require transfer of the 1002 Area of Alaska to the State of Alaska, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 21, 2010 

Mr. HALL of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on 

Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To require transfer of the 1002 Area of Alaska to the State 

of Alaska, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘New Resources for 

5 Domestic Consumption Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PURPOSE. 

7 The purpose of this Act is to provide for the expedi8 tious development of oil, natural gas, and other resources 

9 of the 1002 Area of Alaska by transferring to the State 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

2 

HR 4485 IH 

1 of Alaska all right, title, and interest of the United States 

2 in and to such area. 

3 SEC. 3. TRANSFER OF 1002 AREA TO STATE OF ALASKA. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi5 sion of law, the Secretary of the Interior shall within 30 

6 days after the date of enactment of this Act transfer to 

7 the State of Alaska all right, title, and interest of the 

8 United States in and to the 1002 Area of Alaska, subject 

9 to the condition in subsection (b). 

10 (b) CONDITION.—As a condition of any transfer 

11 under this section, the Secretary shall require the State 

12 of Alaska to pay to the United States 50 percent of all 

13 amounts received by the State of Alaska as a result of 

14 development of oil, natural gas, and other natural re15 sources of the 1002 Area of Alaska. 

16 SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON EXPORT OF OIL. 

17 No oil produced in the 1002 Area of Alaska after the 

18 date of any transfer under section 3 may be exported from 

19 the United States. 

20 SEC. 5. 1002 AREA OF ALASKA DEFINED. 

21 In this Act, the term ‘‘1002 Area of Alaska’’ means 

22 the area described in appendix I to part 37 of title 50, 

23 Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on July 14, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

3 

HR 4485 IH 

1 2008, popularly known as the Coastal Plain of the Arctic 

2 National Wildlife Refuge. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

KELVIN LOVETT, Case No. 1:17-cv-757
Plaintiff, Black, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
vs.
JEREMY EACHES, et al., ORDER
Defendants.

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Toledo Correctional Institution, brings this pro se action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming violations of his civil rights. This matter is before the Court on
plaintiff's motion for a stay. (Doc. 53).

The undersigned issued an Order and Report and Recommendation on October 11, 2018,
granting in part plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint and allowing plaintiff
30 days to submit an amended complaint. (Doc. 48). Plaintiff filed a “Motion for
Reconsideration to his Amended Complaint” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) on October 19, 2018
(Doc. 51), which was construed and docketed as objections to the Report and Recommendation.
Plaintiff filed a motion to amend/correct the motion for reconsideration on October 25, 2018.
(Doc. 52). Plaintiff then submitted a letter to the Court clarifying that he intended to file a
motion for reconsideration of the Order and Report and Recommendation rather than objections.
(Doc. 54). Plaintiff moves to stay the deadline set by the Court to submit an amended complaint
pending a ruling on his motion for reconsideration and motion to amend/correct the motion for
reconsideration.

Plaintiff's “Motion for Reconsideration to his Amended Complaint” (Doc. 51) is properly
construed as objections to the Report and Recommendation rather than a motion to alter or

amend a judgment under Rule 59(e). To avoid further delay of these proceedings, plaintiff's


motion to stay the 30-day deadline for filing an amended complaint pending a ruling on his
objections to the Report and Recommendation and his motion to amend/correct his objections
(Doc. 53) is DENIED. Plaintiff shall have twenty (20) days from the date of this Order to
submit an amended complaint that complies with the terms of the October 11, 2018 Order and
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 48).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: JALG EA .
Karen L. Litkovitz

United States Magistrate Judge
Exhibit 99.2

Certification
of Chief Financial Officer underSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I
hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) of OSullivan Industries, Inc.
for the quarter ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the
information contained in such quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of OSullivan Industries, Inc.

|Date: | September 9, 2003 |  | /s/ Phillip J. Pacey     
|----- | ----------------- |  | -------------------------
|      |                   |  |                          
|      |                   |  | Phillip J. Pacey         
|      |                   |  | Senior Vice President and
|      |                   |  | Chief Financial Officer  

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to OSullivan Industries, Inc.
and will be retained by OSullivan Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 32


                            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 Quarterly Report of AtheroGenics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Russell M. Medford, President and Chief 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 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; and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                           /s/RUSSELL M. MEDFORD
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Russell M. Medford
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           November 14, 2003


<PAGE>



                            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 Quarterly Report of AtheroGenics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Mark P. Colonnese, Senior Vice President of Finance and Administration and Chief
Financial 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; and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                     /s/MARK P. COLONNESE
                                     ------------------------------------------
                                     Mark P. Colonnese
                                     Senior Vice President of Finance and
                                     Administration and Chief Financial Officer
                                     November 14, 2003
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (File No.'s. 333-67371, 333-79385 and 333-85753) of Covol
Technologies,  Inc. (the "Company") of our report dated January 13, 2000,  which
includes  an  explanatory   paragraph  regarding  substantial  doubt  about  the
Company's  ability to continue  as a going  concern,  relating to the  financial
statements, which appears in this Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLC

Salt Lake City, Utah
January 13, 2000
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

1

IN THE MATTER OF: 1

i CASE No.

THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE 1

WARRANTS, APPLICATIONS, PEN j CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

REGISTERS, AND NON- \ ELIZABETH A. PRESTON-DEAVERS

DISCLOSURE ORDERS IN THE |

CASES LISTED IN ATTACHMENT |

A

FILED UNDER SEAL

ORDER TO UNSEAL

Upon the Motion ofthe United States Attorney and for good cause shown, it is

ORDERED that the Search and Seizure Warrants, Applications, Pen Registers, and NonDisclosure Orders and related documents in the cases listed in Attachment A in the above-entitled

matter, be unsealed.

Case: 2:18-mj-00009-CMV Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/29/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 49
ATTACHMENT A:

2:17-l\/lJ-434 2:18-MJ-007 2:18-MJ-756 2:19-MJ-001 2:19-MJ-471

2:17-MJ-585 2;18-MJ-8 2:18-MJ-840 2;19-MJ-45 2:19-MJ-481

2;17-MJ-586 2:18-MJ-9 2:19-MJ-121 2:19-MJ-498

2:17-MJ-587 2:18-MJ-10 2:19-MJ-122 2:19-MJ-510

2:17-MJ-588 2:18-MJ-17 2:19-MJ-127 2:19-MJ-512

2:17-MJ-589 2;18-MJ-51 2:19-MJ-153 2:19-MJ-527

2:17-MJ-617 2:18-MJ-61 2:19-MJ-174 2:19-MJ-528

2:17-MJ-644 2:18-MJ-92 2:19-MJ-175 2:19-MJ-553

2:17-MJ-676 2:lS-MJ-205 2:19-MJ -191 2:19-MJ-560

2:17-MJ-677 2:18-MJ-213 2:19-MJ-255 2;19-MJ-561

2:17-MJ-678 2:18-MJ-232 2:19-MJ-265 2:19-MJ-562

2:17-MJ-679 2:18-MJ-326 2:19-MJ-266 2;19-MJ-563

2:17-MJ-696 2;18-MJ-355 2:19-MJ-272 2:19-MJ-564

2:17-MJ-713 2:18-MJ-379 2:19-MJ-273 2:19-MJ-570

2;17-MJ-714 2:18-MJ-397 2:19-MJ-276

2;17-MJ-715 2:18-MJ-398 2:19-MJ-290

2;17-MJ-747 2:18-MJ-404 2:19-MJ-291

2;17-MJ-758 2:18-MJ-411 2:19-MJ-320

2;17-MJ-759 2:18-MJ-429 2:19-MJ-348

2:17-MJ-761 2:18-MJ-434 2:19-MJ-349

2:17-MJ-762 2:18-MJ-460 2:19-MJ-379

2:17-MJ-782 2:18-MJ-498 2:19-MJ-414

2:17-MJ-791 2:18-MJ-512

2:18-MJ-515

2:18-MJ-532

2:19-MJ-460

Case: 2:18-mj-00009-CMV Doc #: 15 Filed: 01/29/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 50
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER 

### Appellate case:. Maxine Adams and Cecil Adams v. Rebecca Ross Appellate case number: 01-11,00098-CV Trial court case number: 980, 231 Trial court: County Court at Law No. 1 of Harris County, Texas-andAppellate case Maxine Adams and Cecil Adams v. Rebecca Ross Appellate case number: 01-11-00552-CV Trial court case number: 2010-12207 

### Trial court: 269th District Court of Harris County, Texas It is ORDERED that Appellants’ objections tO mediation in the above-referenced appeals are denied. The above-referenced appeals shall proceed to mediation as provided in the November 2, 2012 "Memorandum Order of Referral to Mediation." 

### Judge’s signature:/s/Harvey Brown

[] Acting individually [] Acting for the Court 

### Panel consists of
Date: November 12, 2012