alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10(r)

                       [CORESTATES BANK, N.A. LETTERHEAD]

                                                   October 26, 1995

Timothy W. Byrne
Vice President - Finance
UNITED STATES LIME & MINERALS, INC.
12221 Merit Drive
Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75231

         Re:      Loan and Security Agreement dated October 20, 1993,
                  as Amended, By and Among United States Lime &
                  Minerals, Inc. (Formerly known as Scottish Heritable,
                  Inc.), Corson Lime Company, Texas Lime Company and
                  Arkansas Lime Company (collectively the "Borrowers")
                  and CoreStates Bank N.A.  ("Bank")

Dear Tim:

         We refer to the Loan and Security Agreement dated October 20,1993, as
amended by Amendment No. 1 to Loan and Security Agreement dated as of December
23, 1994, Amendment No. 2 to Loan and Security Agreement dated April 28, 1995,
and Amendment No. 3 to Loan and Security Agreement dated September 29, 1995
(collectively, the "Loan Agreement").  Initially capitalized terms not
otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Loan
Agreement unless the context clearly requires to the contrary. Section
references are to sections of the Loan Agreement.

         Borrowers and Bank hereby agree that notwithstanding the provisions of
Section 7.1.12 of the Loan Agreement (last amended by Amendment No. 2),
Borrowers may make Capital expenditures in any Fiscal year not to exceed
$5,000,000 in the aggregate.

         When fully executed by Bank and Borrowers, this letter will constitute
an amendment to the Loan Agreement as a contract to be construed under the
internal laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. All provisions of the Loan
Agreement not modified hereby shall remain in full force and effect.
<PAGE>   2
Timothy V. Byrne, Vice President - Finance
October 26, 1995
Page 2

         Please indicate Borrowers' acceptance of the terms of this letter
agreement in the space provided below.

                                        Very truly yours,

                                        CORESTATES BANK, N.A.

                                        By: /s/ CLIFFORD W. KEWLEY
                                            -----------------------
                                            Clifford W. Kewley,
                                            Vice President

THE TERMS OF THE FORGOING LETTER
AGREEMENT ARE AGREED TO AND
ACCEPTED THIS ___ DAY OF
_________________, 1995


UNITED STATES LIME & MINERALS, INC.
(Formerly known as Scottish Heritable, Inc.)


By:  /s/ TIMOTHY W. BYRNE
   -----------------------------------------


CORSON LIME COMPANY


By:  /s/ TIMOTHY W. BYRNE
   -----------------------------------------


ARKANSAS LIME COMPANY


By:  /s/ TIMOTHY W. BYRNE
   -----------------------------------------


TEXAS LINE COMPANY

By:  /s/ TIMOTHY W. BYRNE
   -----------------------------------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-12-00251-CV

WEBB COUNTY,

Appellant

v.

KHALEDI PROPERTIES, LTD.,

Appellee/ Cross-Appellant

v.

KILLAM RANCH PROPERTIES, LTD. and Anna L. Cavazos Ramirez,

Cross-Appellees

From the 111th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010-CVT-001589-D2

Honorable Larry Noll, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 27, 2012

CROSS-APPEAL DISMISSED

Cross-Appellant Khaledi Properties, Ltd. has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its 

cross-appeal against Killam Ranch Properties, Ltd. and Anna L. Cavazos Ramirez. We grant the 
04-12-00251-CV

- 2 -

motion and dismiss the cross-appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Costs of the cross-appeal 

are taxed against the party who incurred them.

PER CURIAM
#### SCHMIDT, D. v. WCAB (CITY OF ALLENTOWN)

1887 CD 2016

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

10/23/2017

Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, A16-0134

Affirmed
No. 11-10980.

#### Gilmore *v.*California et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### COM. v. LEE, F.

3023 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/19/2017

CP-51-CR-0206981-1983 (Philadelphia)

Affirmed
EXHIBIT 32.1

     CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350


I, Bruce M. Goldberg, President and Chief Executive Officer of All American
Semiconductor, Inc., hereby certify, to my knowledge:

         (1)  that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of All American
              Semiconductor, Inc. for the quarterly period ended on June 30,
              2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
              hereof at File No. 0-16207 (the "Report") fully complies with the
              requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
              Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)  that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
              all material respects, the financial condition and results of
              operations of All American Semiconductor, Inc.

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.


Date:  August 12, 2005                 /s/ BRUCE M. GOLDBERG
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Bruce M. Goldberg
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer
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 Annual Report of Puget Energy, Inc. and Puget Sound Energy,
Inc. (the “Companies”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Form
10-K”), I, Eric M.
Markell, Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of the Companies, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:




(1)
            The
      Form 10-K 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Companies.











Date:  February
      25, 2010/s/Eric M.
      MarkellEric
      M. MarkellExecutive
      Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
#### Hamilton KINARD, Britnee Kinard, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. John GALLINA, Individually and as Agent of Purple Heart Homes, Inc., Dale Beatty, Individually and as Agent of Purple Heart Homes, Inc., Ashley Doane, Individually and as Agent of Purple Heart Homes, Inc., *975Jim Loncar, Individually and as Agent of Purple Heart Homes, Inc., Purple Heart Homes, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-12733 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(March 5, 2018)

Stephen H. Harris, Law Office of Stephen Harris, Savannah, GA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

William Thomas Mitchell, Cruser Mitchell Novitz Sanchez Gaston & Zimet, LLC, Norcross, GA, Shalena Cook Jones, Cruser *&*Mitchell, LLP, Savannah, GA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before MARCUS, JORDAN, and ROSENBAUM Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Hamilton and Britnee Kinard, represented by counsel, appeal the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice their action for breach of contract, intentional tort, and stubborn litigiousness against Purple Heart Homes, Inc. and a number of individual defendants. After review, we affirm.

The Kinards’ brief contains only four paragraphs of argument, and those paragraphs contain only general legal principles. The brief does not attempt to apply those principles to the allegations in the complaint, nor does it explain why the district court erred in concluding that the complaint failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted.

The Kinards have abandoned their claims because they have failed to provide appropriate arguments as to why they are entitled to relief. *See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co.,*739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014) (“We have long held that an appellant abandons a claim when he either makes only passing references to it or raises it in a perfunctory manner without supporting arguments.and authority.”). *See also*Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8) (“The appellant’s brief must contain ... appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies”). We therefore affirm.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 99.2

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 Quarterly Report of Southwestern Water Exploration Co. ("SWWE") on Form 10-QSB for the nine months ended
December 31, 2001 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Barbara J. McAllister, chief financial officer of SWWE, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 SWWE.

|/s/BARBARA J. MCALLISTERBarbara J. McAllister
Chief Financial Officer |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|August 17, 2002                                                       |  | 

---

QuickLinks
U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

1225 New York Ave. NW – Suite 1100 

Washington, DC 20005

January 18, 2005 

EAC Advisory 05-003 - Interest on HAVA Title I, Section 101 Funds 

Question: Does the State have to remit interest earned on Title I, Section 101 funds 

to the Federal Government? Further, if the State does not have to remit interest 

earned on these funds, may the State use that interest to make up a part, or the 

entirety, of its matching funds pursuant to Section 253(b)(5)? 

Response: States do not have to remit the interest earned on Title I, Section 101 

funds to the Federal Government. Generally, interest on federal grant funds are 

required to be remitted to the federal government under either or both the Cash 

Management Improvement Act or the Common Rule (OMB Circular A-102). 

However, the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) specifically designates the use 

of the interest on money deposited into the election fund required by sections 104(d) 

and 254(b)(1) of HAVA to be used to meet the requirements of Title III and for such 

other purposes that a requirements payment could be used. These sections allow 

the State to retain, rather than remit, the interest earned on Title I, Section 101 

funds, when they have been deposited in the State’s section 254 election fund for 

use in accordance with its state plan and for the purposes permitted by Section 

254(b)(2) and 251(b). 

A State may not use interest from Title I, Section 101 funds to serve as a part of a 

the matching funds appropriated by the State in order to receive Title II 

Requirements Payments. The interest that is earned on Section 101 grant funds is 

interest on Federal funds and thus is Federal in nature. As such, the provisions of

OMB Circular A-87 apply. Specifically, the factors affecting the allowability of 

costs prohibit the use of federal grant funds to meet cost sharing or matching 

requirements of another federal award: 

“h. Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or 

matching requirements of any other Federal award in either the 

current or a prior period, except as specifically provided by Federal law 

or regulation.” 
HAVA does not specifically allow the use of Title I, Section 101 interest as matching 

funds for Title II Requirements Payments. Thus, while the interest on Section 101 

funds may be used to further the State’s efforts to meet the requirements of Title III 

and to improve the administration of Federal elections, those funds cannot be used 

as any part of the State’s matching funds for purposes of receiving Title II 

Requirements Payments.
AGREEMENT  FOR  DEFERRAL  OF  1999  ANNUAL  CASH  BONUS

     Ralston Purina Company ("Company") and  NAME agree that, effective November
                                            -----
1,  1999,  $  DEFERRAL  awarded  to Participant under the 1999 Annual Cash Bonus
           -----------
Award Program shall be deferred, as requested by Participant, into the option or
options  available  under  the  Deferred  Compensation  Plan  for  Key Employees
("Plan"),  the  Prospectus  for  which  is  attached  hereto  as  Exhibit  A and
incorporated  by  reference  herein.

     Pursuant to Participant's request, the following amounts have been deferred
for  Participant  in  the  manner  set  forth  below:

(1)     RALSTON  PURINA  EQUITY  OPTION  -
        ----------------------------------

(a)     $  EQUITY  in  a deferred Stock Equivalent account in Participant's name
        ---------
under  the  Ralston  Purina  Equity  Option  as  set  forth  in  the Prospectus.

(b)     $  MATCH  in  a  deferred Stock Equivalent account in Participant's name
        --------
representing  Company  Matching Deferral (25% of amount listed in 1(a) above) as
set  forth  in  the  Prospectus.

(2)          SHORT-TERM  PRIME  RATE  OPTION  -  $  SHORTTERM in a deferred Cash
             -------------------------------     ------------
account  in  Participant's  name under the Prime Rate Option as set forth in the
Prospectus;  provided,  however,  that,  notwithstanding  any  provision  to the
contrary contained in the Plan, amounts attributable to deferrals into the Prime
Rate  Option  shall  be  paid  to  Participant  in  January  2000.

(3)        PRIME  RATE  OPTION  -  $  PRIMERATE  in  an  unfunded account in the
           -------------------     ------------
Participant's  name  as  set  forth  in  the  Prospectus.

     Participant's  deferral hereunder is pursuant to the Plan and is subject in
all  respects to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and of the Plan.  No
other  communications  or  representations,  written  or  oral,  made  prior  or
subsequent  to  this  Agreement  shall be deemed to amend or modify the terms of
this  deferral  except  by  an  agreement  in  writing  executed  by the parties
subsequent to the date of this Agreement, expressly consenting to such amendment
or  modification.  Participant  hereby  waives  any rights, and releases Company
from  any  claim,  based on any such prior communications or representations, if
any.

ACCEPTED:                                RALSTON  PURINA  COMPANY

_______________________________          By:__________________________
          Participant                       C.  S.  Sommer
                                            Vice  President  and
                                            Director,  Administration
_______________________________
         Date
Presidential Documents

11069

Federal Register

Vol. 62, No. 47

Tuesday, March 11, 1997

Title 3—

The President

Proclamation 6978 of March 7, 1997

National Older Workers Employment Week, 1997

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

American workers age 55 and older represent one of our country’s richest

resources, and the value of their potential contribution to our society is

immense. An estimated 70 percent of all Americans age 55 and older already

actively contribute to our common good—by working, by volunteering, and

by caring for sick and disabled relatives, friends, and neighbors.

Despite their qualifications, however, many of these Americans experience

serious difficulty finding work if they lose a job or desire new employment.

Their search for employment can become increasingly challenging as they

grow older.

Our laws and government agencies can—and do—offer protections, programs,

and services for older workers. The Age Discrimination Act, the Older Americans Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act all recognize

the unique rights of such employees, and the Department of Labor alone

helps thousands of workers each year through efforts such as the Senior

Community Service Employment Program.

But it is up to employers also to recognize the potential of older Americans

as employees—to recognize that by every common measure of job performance, older workers are as effective as younger people because of their

unique skills, experiences, and judgment. And, it is appropriate that we

designate a week to acknowledge that all workers should be judged and

employed on the basis of their individual ability to do a job, regardless

of age.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States,

by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of

the United States, do hereby proclaim March 9 through March 15, 1997,

as National Older Workers Employment Week, and I urge all employers

when they hire new workers to consider carefully the skills and other

qualifications of men and women age 55 and older. I also encourage public

officials responsible for job placement, training, and related services to intensify their efforts throughout the year to help older workers locate available

jobs and training.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this seventh day

of March, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety-seven,

and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred

[FR Doc. 97–6230

Filed 3–10–97; 8:45 am]

and twenty-first.

œ–

Billing code 3195–01–P
#### IN RE: KNAUF INSULATION, INC., Knauf Insulation, SPRL, Appellants

2017-1317

2017-1323

2017-1324

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 9, 2018

. Joshua Paul Larsen, Barnes & Thorn-burg LLP, Indianapolis, IN, argued for appellants. Also represented by James Sweeney.

Lore A. Unt, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by Nathan *1018K. Kelley, Thomas W. Krause, Kakoli Caprihan.

(Reyna, Bryson, and Stoll, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 86.
# C_2021072EN.01003402.xml

| 1.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/34

---

Action brought on 19 January 2021 — Amazon.com and Others v Commission

(Case T-19/21)

(2021/C 72/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Amazon.com, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States), Amazon Services Europe Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Amazon EU Sàrl (Luxembourg), Amazon Europe Core Sàrl (Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Komninos and G. Tantulli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | partially annul Decision C(2020) 7692 final of the European Commission of 10 November 2020 for the part that excludes Italy from the scope of the investigation and from the legal consequences of Article 11(6) of Regulation 1/2003; |
| --- | --- |

—

partially annul Decision C(2020) 7692 final of the European Commission of 10 November 2020 for the part that excludes Italy from the scope of the investigation and from the legal consequences of Article 11(6) of Regulation 1/2003;

| — | order the Commission to bear the applicants’ costs and expenses in connection with these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear the applicants’ costs and expenses in connection with these proceedings.

Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on one plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision unlawfully carved Italy out of the scope of Case AT.40703 and excluded Italy from the legal consequences of Article 11(6) of Regulation 1/2003. In so doing, the Contested Decision violated Article 11(6) of Regulation 1/2003 and undermined its effectiveness and/or it circumvented Article 11(6) of Regulation 1/2003 and defeated the purpose of its existence.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT
ATLANTIC NATIONAL TRUST LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Petitioner

v.
DONALD RUDDY AND ELEANOR RUDDY,H/W, Respondents : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 242 MAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ATLANTIC NATIONAL TRUST LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Petitioner

v.
DONALD RUDDY AND ELEANOR RUDDY,H/W, Respondents : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 243 MAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER
PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 19th day of August, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED

.
#### CINDRICH, R. v. FISHER, M., et al.

440 MD 2010

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

10/25/2017

Allegheny County Civil Division, GD07-013717

Summary Judgment Granted