alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment No. 1 to Purchase Agreement




 Exhibit 10.7 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO 
 PURCHASE AGREEMENT 
 AND 
 SENIOR SUBORDINATED NOTE 
  
 The undersigned, THE MONEY TREE INC. and LIFE OF THE SOUTH CORPORATION, hereby agree to amend that certain Purchase
Agreement and Senior Subordinated Note dated August 5, 2005 as follows: 
  
 1. The definition of Finance Business contained in Exhibit A which shall be specifically incorporated by reference to the Purchase Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the definition contained in the Purchase
Agreement in its entirety and substituting the following: 
  
 “Finance Business” shall mean the business of creating or acquiring Finance Receivables, the sale or lease of used automobiles, or the sale or lease of retail merchandise, including but not limited to,
furniture, appliances, and electronics in the United States of America or any territory or possession thereof, and the transaction of any business incidental thereto including the sale of insurance as an agent or broker and any other activity
incident to the conducting of a full service consumer finance business. 
  
 2. The Maturity Date of the Senior Subordinated Note is incorrectly referenced as August 5, 2005 and is hereby amended to be August 5, 2007. 
  

3. The first two sentences of the prepayment paragraph on page 2 of the Senior Subordinated Note are hereby deleted in their entirety and the following
shall be substituted: 
  
 This Note shall be
subject to prepayment, without penalty, by the Company at any time. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment No. 1 to Purchase Agreement and Senior Subordinated Note is executed as of August 5, 2005 by the parties hereto. 
  

			
	THE MONEY TREE INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/    Vance R. Martin
	 	 	 Vance R. Martin, President



  
  

			
	LIFE OF THE SOUTH CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	/s/    W. Dale Bullard
	 	 	 W. Dale Bullard, Authorized Agent
IN RE WADE.

No. COA05-1323.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed July 5, 2006.

Certification Date July 25, 2006.

Appeal from Rowan (03E460).

Case without published opinion. Dismissed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Health Resources and Services Administration 

# AGENCY:

Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS. 

# ACTION:

Notice; amendment. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Health Resources and Services Administration is amending a notice that appeared in the                         **Federal Register**                         of July 8, 2005, FR Doc. 13422, pages 39517-38518, requesting nominations for voting members to fill three vacancies on the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines. The deadline date for receiving nominations was on or before August 8, 2005. This document amends the notice by extending the deadline date for receiving nominations.                     

# DATES:

The agency must receive nominations on or before September 16, 2005. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Ms. Cheryl Lee at 301-443-2124 or e-mail                         *clee@hrsa.gov*.                     

Dated: August 18, 2005. 

Tina M. Cheatham, 

Director, Division of Policy Review and Coordination. 

[FR Doc. 05-16789 Filed 8-23-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
WALKER F. CROCKER CAUDLE GIBBONEY v. WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., In Its Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Larry W. Caudle, Deceased, VELLER CAUDLE BOONE, RUTH CAUDLE BAITY, RAYMOND C. CAUDLE, ROBERT C. CAUDLE, EDGAR H. CAUDLE, MELISSA B. HARRELSON, L. CLAY WOOTEN, BARBARA WOOTEN MCDONALD, PAULINE WOOTEN CHEEK, BERNICE WOOTEN JONES, LOIS WOOTEN BECK, FLORINE WOOTEN GUEVARRA, CHARLES HERMAN WOOTEN, BETTY WOOTEN HOLDER, BOBBY LEE WOOTEN, NANCY WOOTEN RIST, JERRIE WOOTEN LEWIS and KAREN WOOTEN HAZEN.

No. 5P06

Supreme Court of North Carolina

August 17, 2006

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 9th day of January 2006 by Defendants in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th day of August 2006.

> Martin, J. Recused.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

No. PD-1816-07

JOHNNY RAY ABBOTT, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON THE STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

ELLIS COUNTY

HOLCOMB, J., filed a concurring opinion.

I join the opinion of the Court. I write separately, however, to emphasize that, had appellant

timely appealed from the trial court’s August 16, 2007, judgment placing him on community

supervision, he would have had a valid claim against the trial court’s decision to require, as a

condition of community supervision, that he serve 180 days in jail without receiving time credit for

the 740 days he had already spent in prison awaiting the outcome of his appeal.

A condition of community supervision, to be valid, must have a reasonable relationship to

the rehabilitation of the accused, the compensation of the victim, or the protection of the public. See
Abbott-2

Tamez v. State, 534 S.W.2d 686, 691 (Tex.Crim.App. 1976). In light of the very lengthy postjudgment incarceration endured by appellant in this case, it was unreasonable for the trial court to

require him to serve an additional 180 days in jail as a condition of community supervision. It is

inconceivable that such further incarceration would have had any reasonable relationship to

appellant’s rehabilitation or to the protection of the public.

In addition, the United States Supreme Court has held that the Fifth Amendment protection

against double jeopardy is violated whenever punishment already endured for an offense is not fully

subtracted from any new punishment imposed. North Carolina v. Pierce, 395 U.S. 711, 718 (1969).

In my view, that crediting principle applies with equal force to the probation condition in question

– really, a new type of punishment – imposed for the same conviction after appeal.

Finally, I agree with the court of appeals that “denial of time credit [in a situation like the one

here] would have the effect of penalizing a defendant [for] prosecuting his appeal, and a defendant

should not have to ‘start over’” once he is correctly sentenced. Abbott v. State, 245 S.W.3d 19, 22

(Tex.App.–Waco 2007) (quoting Watson v. State, 942 S.W.2d 723 (Tex.App.–Houston [14th Dist.]

1997, no pet.).

DELIVERED SEPTEMBER 10, 2008

PUBLISH
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                          11,821
<SECURITIES>                                    23,121
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,569
<ALLOWANCES>                                       317
<INVENTORY>                                     10,004
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                61,990
<PP&E>                                          31,284
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,198
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  84,258
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,884
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                      71,362
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    84,258
<SALES>                                         38,126
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,126
<CGS>                                           19,802
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,802
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,776<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    30<F2>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   4
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,813
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,880
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,933
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,933
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .31
<FN>
<F1>Research and development expenses
<F2>Provision for bad debt
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
WIDENHOUSE v. CRUMPLER.

No. COA05-805.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed April 4, 2006.

Certification Date April 24, 2006.

Appeal from Wake (96CVD6933).

Case without published opinion. Reversed and remanded.
STATE v. CASTANEDA.

No. COA05-1254.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed May 16, 2006.

Certification Date June 5, 2006.

Case without published opinion. Dismissed.
In the Matter of D.M.W.

No. 671PA05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2006.

On writ of certiorari pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-32(b) and N.C. Rule of Appellate Procedure 21(a)(2) to review a decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 173 N.C.App. 679, 619 S.E.2d 910 (2005), reversing an order terminating respondent's parental rights entered 26 August 2004 by Judge Avril U. Sisk in District Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Supreme Court 11 September 2006.

Mecklenburg County Attorney's Office, by J. Edward Yeager, Jr., for petitioner-appellant Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services, and Matt McKay, Attorney Advocate, for appellant Guardian ad Litem.

Richard Croutharmel, Raleigh, for respondent-appellee mother.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

REVERSED.
STATE v. Eric Glenn LANE.

No. 606A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2007.

C. Branson Vickory, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Eric Glenn Lane, Pro Se.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th day of March 2007 by Defendant for Extension of Time for Court Reporter to Deliver Transcripts:

"Motion Allowed. Court reporter shall have up to and including the 9th day of April 2007 to prepare and deliver transcript to counsel. By order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of March 2007."
STATE v. IVEY

No. COA05-456

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed March 21, 2006

Certification Date April 10, 2006

Appeal from Alamance (04CRS3697, 04CRS51097, 04CRS51098).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed in part; remanded in part.
STATE v. GOODWIN

No. COA06-1165

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed May 1, 2007

Certification Date May 21, 2007

Appeal from Wake (04CRS76639).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
BATES v. THOMAS-ARTHUR DIVISION.

No. 93P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 8, 2007.

Justin Lee Phillips, Pro Se.

Robert D. Hinshaw, Winston-Salem, for Thompson-Arthur Division, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th day of February 2007 by Plaintiffs for "Notice of Appeal":

"Motion Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference this the 8th day of March 2007."
SAMUEL RUSSELL FLIPPEN, et al v. MARVIN POLK in his official, capacity as Warden of Central Prison, Raleigh, N.C.

No. 178A95-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina

August 17, 2006

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 17th day of August 2006 by Plaintiffs in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th day of August 2006.
STATE of North Carolina v. Terence Jarard AUSTIN.

No. 165P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

Benjamin Dowling-Sendor, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Terence Jarard Austin.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, William D. Kenerly, District Attorney, for State.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 28th day of March 2006 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of October 2006."
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1010/2013Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1010/2013 of 17 October 2013 establishing a prohibition of fishing for black scabbardfish in            EU and international waters of VIII, IX and X by vessels flying the flag of Spain         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1010/2013                     

# of 17 October 2013

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for black scabbardfish in EU and international waters of VIII, IX and X by vessels flying                        the flag of Spain                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring                           compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy(1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Council Regulation (EU) No 1262/2012 of 20 December 2012 fixing for 2013 and 2014 the fishing opportunities for EU vessels                              for certain deep-sea fish stocks(2), lays down quotas for 2013.

(2)According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation                              by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for                              2013.

(3)It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

## Article 1U.K.Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein                     for 2013 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.                  

## Article 2U.K.Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in                     the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited                     to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.                  

## Article 3U.K.Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 17 October 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Lowri Evans                            

*Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

1

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 356, 22.12.2012, p. 22.
STATE of North Carolina v. Michael E. VERRETT.

No. 633P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

Michael E. Verrett, Pro Se.

Isaac T. Avery, III, Special Deputy Attorney General, Michael K. Lands, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 2nd day of November 2005 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of January 2006."
STATE v. CANTY.

No. COA06-42.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed December 19, 2006.

Certification Date January 8, 2007.

Appeal from Guilford (04CRS24100, 04CRS24101, 04CRS24102, 04CRS24103, 04CRS24104, 04CRS24300, 04CRS24303, 04CRS68556).

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Rasheen YOUNGER.

No. 148P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 16, 2006.

Lisa Chun, for Rasheen Younger.

Amy C. Kunstling, Assistant Attorney General, Clark Everett, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 23rd day of March 2006 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th day of November 2006."

Justice EDMUNDS recused.
RIPELLINO v. BOARD OF EDUCATION.

No. 180A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 23, 2006.

Stephanie H. Autry, Rachel B. Esposito, Meredith T. Black, Raleigh, James R. Lawrence, Jr., for Johnston County Bd. of Ed.

Barbara B. Weyher, T. Carlton Younger, III, for School Boards, et al.

*569Christopher Z. Campbell, K. Dean Shatley, Asheville, for NC Council of School of Attys.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd day of August 2006 by Plaintiffs for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Plaintiffs (Michael Ripellino, et al) shall have up to and including the 29th day of September 2006 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 23rd day of August 2006."
EXHIBIT 11

YOUNG BROADCASTING INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES  RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

THREE MONTHS ENDED

SIX MONTHS ENDEDJune 30
2007

June 30
2008

June 30
2007

June 30
2008Shares of common stock outstanding for the entire period


20,138,095


23,216,011


20,027,108


22,872,482Issuance of 282,782 and 1,085,638 shares of common stock to the Company's defined contribution plan in 2007 and 2008


118,750


458,016


180,441


501,953Issuance of 495,500 and 0 shares of common stock under the 2004 equity incentive plan in 2007 and 2008


136,126





68,439


Cancellation of 163,448 and 179,475 shares of common stock to the employee stock purchase plan in 2007 and 2008


(33,728
)

(33,168
)

(41,520
)

(44,564
)Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding


20,359,243


23,640,859


20,234,468


23,329,871Loss from continuing operations


(12,708,070
)

(12,460,285
)

(29,353,474
)

(26,814,240
)Loss from discontinued operations, net of taxes


(5,476,577
)

(140,535,808
)

(14,203,123
)

(141,154,092
)Net loss

$
(18,184,647
)
$
(152,996,093
)
$
(43,556,597
)
$
(167,968,332
)Basic and diluted loss per common shares:Loss from continuing operations

$
(0.62
)
$
(0.53
)
$
(1.45
)
$
(1.15
)Loss from discontinued operations

$
(0.27
)
$
(5.94
)
$
(0.70
)
$
(6.05
)Net loss per common share basic and diluted

$
(0.89
)
$
(6.47
)
$
(2.15
)
$
(7.20
)


---



QuickLinks
MAGNOLIA MANUFACTURING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. v. ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Company, and Erie Insurance Group.

No. 525A06-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 8, 2007.

David S. Coats, John T. Crook, Raleigh, for Erie Insurance.

Robert Hornik, Jr., Chapel Hill, for Magnolia Mfg.

Prior report: 361 N.C. 213, 639 S.E.2d 443.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 1st day of March 2007 for rehearing of the decision of this Court pursuant to Rule 31, N.C. Rules of Appellate Procedure, *230the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th day of March 2007."

Chief Justice PARKER and Justices TIMMONS-GOODSON and HUDSON recused.