alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000881788
<NAME>                        ICON Cash Flow Partners, L.P., Series E

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          2,791,744
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  61,537,199
<ALLOWANCES>                                    1,429,832
<INVENTORY>                                       531,906
<CURRENT-ASSETS> *                                      0
<PP&E>                                         20,707,984
<DEPRECIATION>                                  3,556,775
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 81,380,551
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES> **                                0
<BONDS>                                        61,037,326
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                     15,985,059
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   81,380,551
<SALES>                                         2,581,753
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                2,649,490
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  830,006
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,162,697
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         0
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      656,787
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        1.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        1.07
<FN>
*    The  Partnership  has  an  unclassified  balance  sheet  in  its  financial
     statements due to the nature of its industry.  A value of "0" was used for
     current assets and liabilities.

**   The  Partnership  has  an  unclassified  balance  sheet  in  its  financial
     statements due to the nature of its industry.  A value of "0" was used for
     current assets and liabilities.
</FN>

        


</TABLE>
memp-ex101_217.htm


 

Exhibit 10.1

AMENDMENT TO

WATER DISPOSAL AGREEMENT

This Amendment (this “Amendment”) is made effective as of July 1, 2015 (the “Effective Date”) by and between Memorial Production Operating LLC (“Producer”), a Delaware limited liability company and successor to Classic Hydrocarbons Operating, LLC (“Classic Operating”), and Classic Pipeline & Gathering, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Classic”). Producer and Classic are sometimes hereinafter referred to individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”

RECITALS

A. Classic Operating and Classic entered into that certain letter agreement dated May 1, 2014 (the “Agreement”) with respect to the disposal of Produced Water (as defined in the Agreement).

B. Classic Operating merged with and into Producer on February 23, 2015.

C. The Parties desire to amend the Agreement in certain respects as set forth herein.

AGREEMENT

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties, intending to be legally bound by the terms hereof, agree as follows:

1. Fee. Paragraph (9) of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting “$1.10” and inserting in lieu thereof “$0.40.”

2. Miscellaneous.

(a) Each Party hereby acknowledges, ratifies and confirms all prior acts under the Agreement and agrees to take such further actions and to execute, acknowledge and deliver, without further consideration, all such further documents as are reasonably requested by the other for carrying out the purposes of this Amendment.

(b) Except as hereby expressly modified herein, all terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. The Parties hereby ratify and confirm the Agreement as amended herein.

(c) This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

[Signature Page Follows]

 




 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed and delivered this Amendment as of the Effective Date.

 


	
PRODUCER:

	
 

	
Memorial Production Operating LLC

	
 

	
By:
	
 
	
Memorial Production Partners LP, its sole member

	
By:
	
 
	
Memorial Production Partners GP LLC, its general partner

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
By:
	
 
	
/s/ C.S. Cooper

	
Name:
	
 
	
C.S. Cooper

	
Title:
	
 
	
Chief Operating Officer / SVP

	
 

	
CLASSIC:

	
 

	
Classic Pipeline & Gathering, LLC

	
 

	
By:
	
 
	
MRD Holdco LLC, its sole member

	
 

	
By:
	
 
	
/s/ Kyle N. Roane

	
Name:
	
 
	
Kyle N. Roane

	
Title:
	
 
	
Vice President & General Counsel




[Signature Page to Amendment to Water Disposal Agreement]
AO 450 (Rev. 11/11) Judgment in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The court has ordered that (check one):

u the plaintiff (name) recover from the

defendant (name) the amount of

dollars ($ ), which includes prejudgment

interest at the rate of %, plus post judgment interest at the rate of % per annum, along with costs.

u the plaintiff recover nothing, the action be dismissed on the merits, and the defendant (name)

recover costs from the plaintiff (name)

.

u other:

.

This action was (check one):

u tried by a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has

rendered a verdict.

u tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision

was reached.

u decided by Judge on a motion for

.

Date: CLERK OF COURT

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

AMENDED

Laura Biegajski

Commisioner of Social Security 

3:18-CV-132

*

8/30/19

✔ Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant; Case is remanded to the commissioner * under the

sixth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)for immediate further action

✔ Thomas M. Rose

Report and Recommendations
Exhibit 21.1

                           TREESOURCE INDUSTRIES, INC.
                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant
                               As of July 12, 2000
                    Grouped by State/Country of Incorporation

Oregon
------
Burke Lumber Co.
Central Point Lumber Co.
Glide Lumber Products Co.
Greenweld North America Co.
Midway Engineered Wood Products, Inc.
North Powder Lumber Co.
Pacific Softwoods Co.
Philomath Forest Products Co.
Port Westward Pulp Co.
Trask River Lumber Co.
TreeSource, Inc.
Western Timber Co.
WTD Industries Co.

Washington
----------
Morton Forest Products Co.
Olympia Forest Products Co.
Pacific Hardwoods-South Bend Co.
Sedro-Woolley Lumber Co.
Spanaway Lumber Co.
Tumwater Lumber Co.
Valley Wood Products Co.

Montana
-------
Columbia Falls Forest Products, Inc.

Guam
----
TreeSource International, Inc.
#### Rufus F. and Marguerite H. TURNER, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 9769.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued March 4, 1965.

Decided March 8, 1965.

Fortescue W. Hopkins, Roanoke, Va., for petitioners.

Howard J. Feldman, Atty., Dept, of Justice (Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson and I. Henry Kutz, Attys., Dept, of Justice, on brief), for respondent.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and SOBELOFF and BRYAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This case was here in 1962 (4 Cir., 308 F.2d 94) and remanded to the Tax Court to ascertain the value of certain shares of stock of Cash Produce Company, received by the taxpayer in 1957. The present appeal is from the Tax Court’s determination that the stock was worth $50.00 per share. Our review of the record and a consideration of the briefs and oral arguments convince us that this determination is well supported and should not be disturbed, for we are far from prepared to say that it is clearly erroneous.

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**STATEMENTOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER****OF PTEK HOLDINGS, INC.****PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****§ 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of PTEK Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Boland T. Jones, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|  | 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/ BOLAND T. JONES                                                                  |
|   |   |   |                                                                                      |
|   |   |   | **Boland T. Jones****Chief Executive Officer****PTEK Holdings, Inc.**August 14, 2003 |

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to PTEK Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by PTEK Holdings, Inc. and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
#### Johnston *v.*Lowery.

Opinion delivered March 10, 1930.

*287*G. L. Grant,*for appellant.

*Hardin ■<& Barton,*for appellee.

Kirby, J.,

(after stating the facts). Appellant insists that he is entitled to the custody of his child as against the child’s aunt under the circumstances of this case, and that the order of the judge holding otherwise should be quashed. The general rule is well understood and well established that the father is the natural guardian of his child and entitled to its custody. *Mantooth*v. *Hophins,*106 Ark. 197, 153 S. W. 95. The law recognizes the preferential rights of parents to their children over relatives and strangers, and where no,t detrimental to the welfare of the children, they are paramount, and will be respected, unless special circumstances demand that such rights be ignored. *Herbert*v. *Herbert,*176 Ark. 858, 4 S. W. (2d) 513; *Loewe*v. *Shook,*171 Ark. 474, 284 S. W. 726.

The courts will not always, however, award the custody of an infant to the father, but, in the exercise of a sound discretion, will look into the peculiar circumstances of the case, and act as the welfare of the 'child appears to require considering primarily, three things: *288“(1) Respect fior parental affection, (2) Interest of humanity generally, (3) The infant’s own best interest.” *Mantooth*v. *Hopkins, supra; Verser*v. *Ford,*37 Ark. 29; *Coulter*v. *Sypert,*78 Ark. 193, 95 S. W. 457. The majority of the court is of opinion, in which the writer does not concur, that there was only an exercise of sound discretion by the judge, and not an abuse of it, in awarding the custody of the infant child, under the circumstances of this case, to the aunt, to whom she was much attached, with whom she had long lived, and with whom she expressed a decided preference to remain.

Appellant pursued the correct practice by bringing the action or decision of the judge upon the *habeas corpus*proceeding to this court by certiorari for a review, revision or correction. *Ex parte Good,*19 Ark. 410; *State*v. *Williams,*97 Ark. 243, 133 S. W. 1017; *Ex parte Dame*162 Ark. 382, 269 S. W. 754.

Having found the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought, the petition will be dismissed. It is so ordered.
Exhibit






EXHIBIT 10.3






AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
SUBORDINATED LOAN AGREEMENT


This AMENDMENT NO. 1 dated as of October 30, 2015 (this “Amendment”) to that certain SUBORDINATED LOAN AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) dated as of July 31, 2014, is made and entered into by and between Boardwalk Pipelines Holding Corp., a Delaware corporation (the “Lender”), and Boardwalk Pipelines, LP, a Delaware limited partnership (the “Borrower”).
Capitalized terms used in this Amendment which are defined in the Agreement shall have the meanings given to them therein. 
WHEREAS, the Lender and the Borrower desire to amend the Agreement to extend the Availability Period from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2016. 
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants herein contained, the Borrower and the Lender agree as follows:
1.  The definition of “Availability Period” contained in Section 1.1 of the Agreement is here by deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
 “Availability Period” shall mean the period from the Closing Date through December 31, 2016.
2.  This Amendment shall be governed by, and construed and interpreted in accordance with, the law of the State of New York. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts and by different parties in separate counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement.  Signature pages may be detached from multiple separate counterparts and attached to a single counterpart so that all signature pages are attached to the same document.  Delivery of an executed signature page of this Agreement by facsimile transmission or electronic mail shall be as effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart hereof.  
3. Except as expressly provide in this Amendment, the Agreement shall be unmodified and shall remain in full force and effect.


[signature page follows]


    









EXHIBIT 10.3




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written.
	
			
	 
	BOARDWALK PIPELINES, LP,
as Borrower

	 
	 
	By: BOARDWALK OPERATING GP, LLC,
its general partner


By: BOARDWALK PIPELINE PARTNERS, LP, 
its managing member


By: BOARDWALK GP, LP,
its general partner


By: BOARDWALK GP, LLC, 
its general partner



	 
	By:
	____________________________________

	 
	 
	Name:

	 
	 
	Title:

	 
	BOARDWALK PIPELINES HOLDING CORP., 
as Lender

	 
	By:
	____________________________________

	 
	 
	Name:

	 
	 
	Title:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

BOBBIE L. JARVIS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 1:17-cv-859

Judge Timothy S. Black

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz

DECISION AND ENTRY

ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 17)

This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United 

States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate 

Judge reviewed the pleadings and, on August 23, 2018, submitted a Report and 

Recommendation. (Doc. 17). No objections were filed. 

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has 

reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all 

of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does 

determine that such Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby adopted in its 

entirety. 

Accordingly:

1. The parties’ joint stipulation and request to remand this case (Doc. 16) is 

GRANTED; 

2. This case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further administrative 

proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and
2

3. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case shall be 

TERMINATED on the docket of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge

11/20/18
Case: 1:18-cv-00059-SJD-KLL Doc #: 2 Filed: 01/29/18 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 19
Case: 1:18-cv-00059-SJD-KLL Doc #: 2 Filed: 01/29/18 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 20
Case: 1:18-cv-00059-SJD-KLL Doc #: 2 Filed: 01/29/18 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 21
Case: 1:18-cv-00059-SJD-KLL Doc #: 2 Filed: 01/29/18 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 22
----

----

**EXHIBIT      31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS***

| Date:                November 14, 2007 | By:/s/                Ronald M. Diner |                                                |
|----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                                   |                                  | Ronald                M. Diner                      |
|                                   |                                  | President                                           |
|                                   |                                  | Raymond                James Tax Credit Funds, Inc. |
|                                   |                                  | (Managing                General Partner)           |

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

JOHN DOE,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:18-cv-482

v. CHIEF JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura

KENYON COLLEGE,

et al.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter came before the Court on May 16, 2018 for a telephone conference on 

Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 4);

See S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 65.1. The parties were both represented at that conference. Defendants 

have agreed to expedite the at-issue decision process and are DIRECTED to contact Chief Judge 

Sargus’ clerk with the expected decision date. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_May 16, 2018_______________ __/s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr._______________

DATED EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT CHIEF JUDGE
Exhibit 10.4


 


 


 



FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE

RIVER VALLEY FINANCIAL BANK

 SALARY CONTINUATION AGREEMENT


Pursuant to rights reserved under Section 8.1 of the River Valley Financial Bank Salary Continuation Agreement (the “Agreement”), River Valley Financial Bank (the “Bank”) and Matthew P. Forrester (“Forrester”) hereby amend Section 2.5 of the Agreement by adding to the end thereof the following:


“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the foregoing, this Section 2.5 shall not apply to any Separation from Service that occurs after October 27, 2016.  Any benefit payable with respect to a Separation from Service that occurs on or after October 27, 2016, shall be paid without regard to this Section 2.5 and at such time and in such manner as otherwise provided in Section 2.1, Section 2.2, or Section 2.3, subject to the delayed commencement of payment required by Section 2.8(b).  For purposes of clarification, the delay in the commencement of payment under Section 2.8(b) shall be applied with respect to any installment form of payment by delaying payment of all installment payments otherwise due during the five year period beginning on the date the first installment payment is otherwise scheduled to be made and making those delayed installment payments in a single lump sum on the day that is five years and one day after the date the first installment payment was otherwise scheduled to have been made.  Any remaining installments shall be payable as otherwise scheduled.”


In addition, the Bank and Forrester hereby amend Section 1.11 of the Agreement by adding to the end thereof the following:


“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the foregoing, for any Separation of Service that occurs after October 27, 2016, “Early Termination” means Separation from Service before Early Retirement Age except when such Separation from Service occurs due to death, Termination for Cause or Disability.”


This Amendment has been executed and is effective this 27th day of October, 2015.


 


	 	
RIVER VALLEY FINANCIAL BANK


	 	 	 
	 	
Signature

	
/s/ Fred W. Koehler





 


	 	
Printed Name:

	
Fred W. Koehler





 


	 	
Title:

	
Chairman


	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	
EXECUTIVE


	 	 	 
	 	
/s/ Matthew P. Forrester


	 	
Matthew P. Forrester
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934 FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         946,847
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,269
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       4,306,218
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,907,245
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,720,657
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,889,461
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,720,657
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               488,299
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,215,122
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              79,250
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (806,073)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (806,073)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (806,073)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (21.88)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (21.88)<F1>
<FN>
<F1>EPS IS NET INCOME (LOSS) PER $1,000 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNIT.
</FN>


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

Jamual S. Burks,
Plaintiff(s),
Case Number: 1:18cv282
vs.
Judge Susan J. Dlott
Christina Weaver,
Defendant(s)
ORDER
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Stephanie K. Bowman filed on November 13, 2019 (Doc. 18), to whom this case was
referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), and noting that no objections have been filed thereto and
that the time for filing such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) expired November 27, 2019,
hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 13) is GRANTED. This

case is TERMINATED from the docket of this Court.

IT TS SO ORDERED.

etaw 4. Wyble

Judge Susan J./Plott
United States District Court