alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10(z)
                   MCNIC Pipeline & Processing Company
                        150 West Jefferson Avenue
                               Suite 1700
                         Detroit, Michigan 48226



                       					30 October, 1998					


VIA FACSIMILE
(405) 842-9901 and
FEDERAL EXPRESS

Mr. Herb Mee, Jr.
Beard Mining, L.L.C.
5600 North May Avenue
Suite 320
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73112

Re:	Amendment to Coal Fines Extraction and Beneficiation Agreement among CRC
    No. 1 LLC, CRC No. 2 LLC, CRC No. 3 LLC, CRC No. 4 LLC, CRC No. 5 LLC
    and CRC No. 6 LLC and Beard Mining, L.L.C.

Dear Mr. Mee:

When fully executed by the parties, this letter agreement shall reflect  
our agreement regarding amending Section 8.1 of the Coal Fines Extraction
and Beneficiation Agreement (the "Agreement") among CRC No. 1 LLC, CRC No.
2 LLC, CRC No. 3 LLC, CRC No. 4 LLC, CRC No. 5 LLC and CRC No. 6 LLC and 
Beard Mining, L.L.C.  The parties agree that Section 8.1 of the Agreement
is to be replaced in its entirety with the following language effective 
October 30, 1998:

         8.1 Term.  Unless sooner terminated as provided herein, the 
         term of this Agreement shall commence on the effective date 
         of this Agreement and shall expire on December 31, 1998 (the
         "Initial Term").  After the expiration of the Initial Term,
         this Agreement may be terminated without cause by either party 
         upon thirty days written notice to the other.

If the above accurately sets forth our agreement, please execute two copies 
of this letter agreement where indicated below and return one copy to the 
undersigned.

                                         CRC No. 1 LLC
                                         CRC No. 2 LLC
                                         CRC No. 3 LLC
                                         CRC No. 4 LLC
                                         CRC No. 5 LLC
                                         CRC No. 6 LLC

                                         BRUCE SCHLANSKER
                                         Bruce Schlansker, Chairman


Agreed to and accepted this 30th day of October 1998.

Beard Mining, L.L.C.
By:  Beard Technologies, Inc., an Oklahoma
     Corporation, Member and Manager

     HERB MEE, JR.
     Herb Mee, Jr.
     Member    Herb Mee, Jr., Vice President



cc:   William Kraemer
      R.G. Ryan
      Steve Richardson, Esq.
James HUFF, Petitioner, v. TELECHECK SERVICES, INC., et al.

No. 19-785

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Yaqob Tafan THOMAS, petitioner, v. Joseph P. MEKO, Warden.

No. 18-9219.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2019.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CMI INDUSTRIES, INC. FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER
28, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996
<CASH>                                           1,108
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,868
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,769
<INVENTORY>                                     59,723
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               119,845
<PP&E>                                         240,128
<DEPRECIATION>                                 125,602
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 242,560
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,646
<BONDS>                                        151,637
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,690
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,565
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   242,560
<SALES>                                        277,088
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               277,088
<CGS>                                          258,916
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  281,414
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,859
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (14,863)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (5,609)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (9,254)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (9,254)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (5.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (5.48)
        

</TABLE>
Amilcar RIVAS-RIVERA, petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 18-5450.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
1 NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 10a0069n.06 No. 10-3098 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
LAWRENC E RE YN OL DS, Plaintiff, MARK BROWN, Inte rv e no r - Ap pe lla

nt,
v.
TE D ST RI CKLAN D, TE RRYJ. COL L I NS, PHI L L I P KER

NS, and EXECUTI ON TEAM MEMBERS #1-21, De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE S OUT HER

N DI S TR I CT OF O H IO
ORDER

Before: BATCHELDER, Chief Circuit Judge; SILER an d SUT TON, Circuit Judges. P ER CURIAM . Th e mot ion by the a pp e lla nt, Mark B ro wn , fo r a st ay of

e xec uti on

is denied, a nd the panel aff

irms the district c ourt for the rea sons se t f orth in the district court opinion, Rey nolds (

Brown) v. Strickland, No. 2: 10-cv- 27 (S.D. Ohio Fe b. 2, 2010), and in our r ece nt opinion in Cooey (

Biros) v. Strickland, 589 F.3d 210 ( 6th Cir. 2009). AFF I RMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

JAY WILLIAMS §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Case No. 6:23-cv-298-MJT-ZJH

§

NANCY PERRYMAN, et al., §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Jay Williams, an inmate of the Henderson County Jail proceeding pro se, filed this 

lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and did not pay the filing fee. The case was reassigned to the 

undersigned after the recusal of several judges, and it was referred to United States Magistrate 

Judge Zach Hawthorn for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the 

disposition of the case. 

On October 3, 2023, Judge Hawthorn issued a Report recommending that Plaintiff’s 

lawsuit be dismissed for failure to prosecute because Plaintiff had failed to comply with the Court’s 

order to satisfy the filing fee requirement and to file an amended complaint to correct deficiencies 

observed in the initial pleading. Docket No. 33. A copy of this Report was mailed to Plaintiff, but 

he has not filed written objections or sought an extension of time to do so.

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a 

party objects within fourteen days 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. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 

Case 6:23-cv-00298-MJT-ZJH Document 34 Filed 11/08/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 117
2

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, Plaintiff 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 his 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. 33) as the findings of this Court. It is therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED

without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Any pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. 

____________________________

Michael J. Truncale

United States District Judge SIGNED this 8th day of November, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00298-MJT-ZJH Document 34 Filed 11/08/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 118
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 23.01

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS'



The Board of Directors of
Guilford Pharmaceuticals Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form
S-8 (No. 333-17833, No. 333-72319, No. 333-30814, No. 333-56092, No. 333-71218,
No. 333-88716) and the registration statements on Form S-3 (Registration No.
333-35415, No. 333-82397, No. 333-87091, No. 333-50222, No. 333-63576) of
Guilford Pharmaceuticals Inc. of our report dated February 7, 2003 except for
paragraph three of Note 20, which is as of March 13, 2003, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Guilford Pharmaceuticals Inc. and subsidiaries
(the "Company") as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002, and our
report dated February 7, 2003 on the related financial statement schedule, which
reports appear in the December 31, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K of Guilford
Pharmaceuticals Inc. Our reports refer to a change in the Company's revenue
recognition policy for non-refundable upfront fees in 2000.


/s/ KPMG LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 27, 2003
EX-10.5



 Exhibit 10.5 
 FERRO 
  

					
	  	  	 	  	James F. Kirsch
		  		  	 Chairman, President and
 Chief Executive Officer


 February 24, 2012 
 PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL 
 Addendum to February 16. 2012 Offer
Letter 
 Jeffrey L. Rutherford 

14784 River Glen Drive 
 Novelty, Ohio 44072

 Dear Jeff: 
 The following
provision is hereby added to the offer letter dated February 16, 2012: 
 Should your resignation from Park-Ohio Holdings
result in the forfeiture of your earned bonus, Ferro will reimburse you for the documented amount of the forfeited bonus up to a maximum of $150,000, within the first 120 days of employment with Ferro. 

If you have any questions, please give Ann Killian or me a call. 
 Sincerely, 
 James F. Kirsch 
 Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer 
 Ferro Corporation | 6060 Parkland
Boulevard | Mayfield Heights, Ohio 44124 | USA 
 p 216.875.5750     f 216.875.5631
    www.ferro.com
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC Form
10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-06-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-06-1999
<CASH>                                          13,842
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   82,189
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     40,917
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               142,880
<PP&E>                                          15,910
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,733
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 228,098
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,273
<BONDS>                                        125,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            81
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,986
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   228,098
<SALES>                                        407,812
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               407,812
<CGS>                                          303,769
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  303,769
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                69,428
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,712
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,267
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,736
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,531
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,531
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.11


</TABLE>
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 on Form 10-K of Baltic
International USA, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2014
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, David A. Grossman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
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:

  (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
       15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Date:  April 15, 2015

                              /s/ David A. Grossman
                              -------------------------------------------------
                              David A. Grossman
                              Chief Executive Officer and
                                Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1 

 

 

|   | **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 EMAK Worldwide, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “Report”), I, James L. Holbrook, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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/ James L. Holbrook, Jr.

James L. Holbrook, Jr.

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)

 

 

Dated: November 14, 2006

 

  |
|--------|-------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

T-MOBILE US, INC. et al. 

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 2:23-CV-00377-JRG-RSP

 

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants T-Mobile US, Inc., and T-Mobile USA, Inc.’s Unopposed 

Motion for Extension of Time to Move, Answer, or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint 

for Patent Infringement. After consideration of the same, the Court is of the opinion that the 

Motion should be and hereby is GRANTED. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the deadline for which Defendants are required to 

move, answer, or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint is extended up to and including 

November 2, 2023. 

Case 2:23-cv-00377-JRG-RSP Document 20-1 Filed 09/06/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 292
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, NOTES, THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           7,930
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,296
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,706
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,088
<PP&E>                                           7,643
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,093
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  73,747
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           74,444
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           148
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1,020)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    73,747
<SALES>                                         93,760
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                93,760
<CGS>                                           86,763
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   94,901
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 867
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,630)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,631)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,631)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.11)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Uromed Corporation (the “Company”) on Form10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the “Report”), as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Ivo Heiden, CEO and Chairman ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ Ivo Heiden

Ivo Heiden CFO and ChairmanDated: June 28, 2005

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to Uromed Corporation and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUFKIN DIVISION

ROGER LAVOY DODD §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-cv-146

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner Roger Lavoy Dodd, an inmate confined in the Texas Department of Criminal

Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus. This matter was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636 for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition.

Discussion

Petitioner complains that the United States Department of the Treasury and the Internal

Revenue Service have improperly denied him two economic impact payments pursuant to the

Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. He states he is entitled to receive such

payments.

As stated above, Petitioner filed this action as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. A

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus may only be used to challenge the fact or duration of an inmate’s

confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 483 (1973); Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818,

820-21 (5th Cir. 1997). Even if Petitioner’s claim is meritorious, his success would not entitle him

to be released from prison sooner than would otherwise be the case. As a result, his claim may not

Case 9:23-cv-00146-MAC-CLS Document 2 Filed 10/05/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 15
be presented via a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.1

 His Petition should therefore be dismissed

without prejudice.

Recommendation

This Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should be dismissed without prejudice.

Objections

Objections must be (1) specific, (2) in writing, and (3) served and filed within 14 days after

being served with a copy of this report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.R.CIV. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72(b).

A party’s failure to object bars that party from (1) entitlement to de novo review by a district

judge of proposed findings and recommendations, Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th

Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of unobjected-to factual

findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,

79 F.3d 1415, 1429 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

1

 Under other circumstances, the court might liberally construe this filing as a civil rights lawsuit.

However, Petitioner specifically states he is not filing a civil rights lawsuit. The court construes this statement to

mean that Petitioner is not trying to file any type of lawsuit that is civil in nature. 

2

.

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 4th day of October, 2023.

Case 9:23-cv-00146-MAC-CLS Document 2 Filed 10/05/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 16