alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Addendum to Loan Agreement



 Exhibit 10-7 
 Addendum to Loan Agreement 
 As of the April 17, 2012 the loan agreement
associated with Loan # 9660933120-00004 in the original amount of $6,940,000, dated February 22, 2011 by and between BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY (“Bank”) and Southeast Power Corporation, a State of Florida corporation
(“Borrower”), having its executive office at Melbourne, Florida is hereby amended as follows: 
 Section 5 Financial Covenants is
modified to replace: 
 “Debt to Worth. A ratio of total liabilities to tangible net worth of not greater than 1.5 to 1.0.”

 with 
 “Debt to Worth.
A ratio of total liabilities to tangible net worth of not greater than 2.0 to 1.0” 
 No other changes or modifications to the original
agreement are made by this addendum. This addendum modification would supersede any prior change or addendum to this section of the loan agreement. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Bank, Borrower and Guarantor(s) have caused this Agreement to be duly executed under seal all as of the date first above written. 

 

							
	Witnesses:	 		 		 	Borrower:
		 		 		 	Southeast Power Corporation
				
	 /s/ Barry Forbes
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Stephen R. Wherry

		 		 		 	Stephen R. Wherry
	 /s/ Cassandra Mora-Brown
	 		 		 	Title: Treasurer
				
		 		 		 	Guarantors:
		 		 		 	The Goldfield Corporation
				
	 /s/ Barry Forbes
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Stephen R. Wherry

		 		 		 	Stephen R. Wherry
	 /s/ Cassandra Mora-Brown
	 		 		 	Title: Senior Vice President
				
		 		 		 	Bank:
		 		 		 	Branch Banking and Trust Company
	 /s/ Stephen R. Wherry
	 		 		 	
		 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Barry Forbes

	 /s/ Cassandra Mora-Brown
	 		 		 	Barry Forbes
		 		 		 	Title: Senior Vice President
Ramon Andrew WILLIAMS, aka Andrew Denton Williamson, petitioner, v. Matthew G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General.

No. 18-273.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONIC CO., LTD;

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-CV-00285-JRG-RSP

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO MOVE, 

ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

AND WAIVER OF FOREIGN SERVICE REQUIREMENT

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd., (collectively 

“Defendants”), without waiving any defenses described or referred to in Rule 12 F.R.C.P., move 

the Court to extend the time within which Defendants are required to move, answer, or otherwise 

respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint. In support of their Motion, Defendants state as follows: 

1. On June 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed its Complaint alleging patent infringement against 

Samsung Electronics, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd.

2. On June 21, 2023, Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. was served with 

Plaintiff’s Complaint. Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd. has not yet been served. 

3. Counsel for Defendants have agreed to waive service under the Hague Convention 

for Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd., a foreign entity, in exchange for a 90-day extension of 

time to answer or otherwise plead by October 10, 2023. 

4. Defendants’ agreement with Plaintiff should not be construed as a waiver of any 

other rights or defenses, including for instance, Defendants’ right to file counterclaims, affirmative 

defenses, or to otherwise challenge the validity of the subject patents. 

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 13 Filed 07/07/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 246
2

WHEREFORE, Defendants Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics 

Company, Ltd. request that the time in which they are required to move, answer or otherwise 

respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint be extended up to and including October 10, 2023. 

Dated: July 7, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Melissa R. Smith

Melissa R. Smith

State Bar No. 24001351

GILLAM & SMITH, LLP

303 South Washington Avenue

Marshall, Texas 75670

Telephone: (903) 934-8450

Facsimile: (903) 934-9257

melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and 

Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 13 Filed 07/07/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 247
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel of record who are deemed to have consented 

to electronic services are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF 

system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on July 7, 2023.

/s/ Melissa R. Smith

Melissa R. Smith

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel for Defendants met and conferred with

counsel for Plaintiff. Counsel for Plaintiff indicated that it is unopposed to this motion.

/s/ Melissa R. Smith

 Melissa R. Smith

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 13 Filed 07/07/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 248
Kenneth Jerome DAWSON, petitioner, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO, et al.

No. 18-177.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

*863Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JANUARY 31, 2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                          31,408
<SECURITIES>                                     4,602
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,469
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,921
<PP&E>                                           5,034
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  80,589
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,465
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           165
<OTHER-SE>                                      55,207
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    80,589
<SALES>                                         40,781
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                64,680
<CGS>                                           10,262
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,210
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               115,584
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (61,836)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       474
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (62,310)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (62,310)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.98)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2171 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2171

   To require any amounts appropriated for Members' Representational 
  Allowances for the House of Representatives for a fiscal year that 
remain after all payments are made from such Allowances for the year to 
   be deposited in the Treasury and used for deficit reduction or to 
                        reduce the Federal debt.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 10, 1999

Mr. Roemer (for himself, Mr. Upton, Mr. Camp, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin, 
Mr. Goss, Mr. Deal of Georgia, Ms. Kaptur, Ms. Rivers, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. 
Nethercutt, Mr. Goode, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Baldacci, Mr. Luther, Mr. Minge, 
   Mr. McHugh, Mr. Shows, Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. Stearns, Mr. 
    Sanford, Mr. Foley, Mr. Leach, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Bentsen, Mr. 
  Strickland, Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Cook, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Hill of 
    Indiana, Mr. Porter, Mr. Castle, Mr. Tiahrt, Mrs. Morella, Mr. 
   Goodling, Mr. Graham, Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Inslee, Mrs. 
Fowler, Mr. Phelps, Mr. Clement, Mr. Souder, Mr. Kuykendall, Mr. Gekas, 
 Mr. Kind, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Coble, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. English, Mr. McNulty, 
Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Cramer, and Ms. Carson) introduced the following bill; 
      which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require any amounts appropriated for Members' Representational 
  Allowances for the House of Representatives for a fiscal year that 
remain after all payments are made from such Allowances for the year to 
   be deposited in the Treasury and used for deficit reduction or to 
                        reduce the Federal debt.

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

SECTION 1. REQUIRING AMOUNTS REMAINING IN MEMBERS' REPRESENTATIONAL 
              ALLOWANCES TO BE USED FOR DEFICIT REDUCTION OR TO REDUCE 
              THE FEDERAL DEBT.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
amounts appropriated for Members' Representational Allowances for the 
House of Representatives for a fiscal year which remain after all 
payments are made under such Allowances for the year shall be deposited 
in the Treasury and used for deficit reduction, except that in the case 
of a fiscal year for which there is no Federal budget deficit, such 
amounts shall be used to reduce the Federal debt (in such manner as the 
Secretary of the Treasury considers appropriate).
    (b) Effective Date.--This section shall apply with respect to 
fiscal year 2000 and each succeeding fiscal year.
                                 <all>
```
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

ESAW LAMPKIN, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

DANIEL COX, 

 Respondent. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:23-cv-174-JDK-KNM 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Petitioner Esaw Lampkin, a former Henderson County Jail inmate proceeding 

pro se, filed this federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254. The petition was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole 

Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition. 

On November 29, 2023, Judge Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation 

recommending that the Court deny the petition and dismiss this case without 

prejudice for failure to obey a Court order and failure to prosecute. Docket No. 8. A 

copy of this Report was mailed to Petitioner at his last-known address. To date, 

Petitioner has not objected to the Report. 

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de 

novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and 

Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court 

examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. 

Case 6:23-cv-00174-JDK-KNM Document 10 Filed 10/10/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 38
2 

Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), 

superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to 

file objections from ten to fourteen days). 

Here, Petitioner did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore 

reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and 

reviews the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See 

United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 

918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the 

standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). 

Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, 

the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to 

law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the 

United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 8) as the findings of this Court. This 

petition for habeas corpus is hereby DENIED and this action is DISMISSED

without prejudice. If Petitioner contacts the Court with an updated address within 

ninety days after final judgment, the Court will reopen the case and vacate the final 

judgment. 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10th October, 2024.

Case 6:23-cv-00174-JDK-KNM Document 10 Filed 10/10/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 39
Gregory D. KILPATRICK, petitioner, v. Howard A. ZUCKER, Commissioner, New York State Department of Health, Office of Professional Medical Conduct;

Gregory D. Kilpatrick, petitioner, v. Sally Dreslin, Office of Professional Medical Conduct.

No. 18-5908.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
David MEYERS, petitioner, v. Walter SWINEY, et al.

No. 18-8735.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT

Board of Directors and Stockholders
WVS Financial Corporation

We have reviewed the  accompanying  consolidated  balance sheet of WVS Financial
Corporation and subsidiary as of December 31, 2000, and the related consolidated
statement of income for the three-month and six-month periods ended December 31,
2000 and 1999, the consolidated statement of changes in stockholders' equity for
the six-month period ended December 31, 2000, and the consolidated statements of
cash flows for the  six-month  periods ended  December 31, 2000 and 1999.  These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute  of  Certified  Public  Accountants.  A review  of  interim  financial
information consists principally of applying analytical  procedures to financial
data and making  inquiries of persons  responsible  for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with  generally  accepted  auditing  standards,  the  objective  of which is the
expression of an opinion  regarding the financial  statements  taken as a whole.
Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material  modifications that should
be made to the  accompanying  financial  statements for them to be in conformity
with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have  previously  audited,  in accordance  with generally  accepted  auditing
standards,  the consolidated  balance sheet as of June 30, 2000, and the related
consolidated  statements  of income,  changes in  stockholders'  equity and cash
flows for the year then ended (not  presented  herein);  and in our report dated
July  28,  2000 we  expressed  an  unqualified  opinion  on  those  consolidated
financial statements.

/s/ S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.
------------------------
S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.


Wexford, PA
February 9, 2001

                                       E-1
United States District Court

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

DAVID LAFOND, SR.

v. 

DENTON COUNTY, et al.

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23-CV-00434-

ALM-AGD

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Came on for consideration the Report and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge (“Report”), this matter having been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On August 29, 2024, the Report of the Magistrate Judge, (Dkt. #13), was 

entered containing proposed findings of fact and recommendation that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed 

without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Having received the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no timely objections 

being filed, the Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge 

are correct and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

It is therefore ORDERED Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Case 4:23-cv-00434-ALM-AGD Document 14 Filed 09/19/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 48
Alex D. RAMOS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6395.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk September 4, 2012

h0827 

# Order

September 4, 2012

144584

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 144584

COA: 305318

Wayne CC: 08

- 015560

- FC

LUKE ANTHONY REDMOND,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 8, 2011

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for

consideration as on leave granted.
FILED

December 11, 1996

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE

WALTER A. DICKMAN, )

)

Plaintiff/Appellant, )

) Putnam Chancery

) No. J-5751

VS. )

) Appeal No.

) 01A01-9605-CV-00210

HOMES OF LEGEND, INC. and )

MEADOWS HOMES, INC., )

)

Defendants/Appellees. )

CONCURRING OPINION

I concur with the court’s conclusion that granting the summary judgment

in this case was inappropriate. Summary judgments should not be granted when

doubt exists with regard to the conclusions to be drawn from the facts. Byrd v.

Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208, 211 (Tenn. 1993); Clifton v. Bass, 908 S.W.2d 205, 208

(Tenn. Ct. App. 1995); Mansfield v. Colonial Freight Sys., 862 S.W.2d 527, 530

(Tenn. Ct. App. 1993). 

Walter Dickman alleges that the electric furnace he was repairing when he

was electrocuted was dangerous and defective either because it was improperly

wired or because the breakers associated with the furnace were mislabeled. The

manufacturer and seller of the mobile home in which the heater had been installed

asserted that Mr. Dickman was responsible for his own injuries because he failed

to take adequate precautions to assure that the electric current to the heater was

turned off before he began working on it.

The court has noted that the affidavits touching on these issues paint an

incomplete and unsatisfactory picture of the cause of Mr. Dickman’s injuries. The

adequacy of Mr. Dickman’s precautions before working on the heater depend

upon the configuration of the wiring in the mobile home and the heater itself.

None of the affidavits provide a complete and clear picture of the wiring, and thus
-2-

we cannot conclude based on these affidavits that Mr. Dickman was negligent

when he began to repair the furnace after verifying that the homeowner had turned

off the breaker labeled “heat.”

____________________________

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE
Ex. 32.2 Certification of the Chief Financial Officer of MetaSolv, Inc. pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



CFO Certification



I, Glenn A. Etherington, Chief Financial
Officer of MetaSolv, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2003, dated as of March 12, 2004 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Report) by the Company fully complies with the requirements of that section.



I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



|                           
|---------------------------
|                           
|/s/    Glenn A.
Etherington
|Name: Glenn A. Etherington,
|Chief Financial Officer    
|March 12, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 10-KSB AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000918027
<NAME> HI-SHEAR TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                     481
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,417
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,398
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,648
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,417
<SALES>                                         17,298
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,298
<CGS>                                           11,858
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,610
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 213
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,475
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (624)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,099
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,099
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .31


</TABLE>