alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1.c

Fifth Amendment to Guaranty

          This Fifth Amendment to Guaranty (the "Fifth Amendment") is made and entered into as of August 30, 2003, by and between Great Plains Energy Incorporated (the "Guarantor") and Coral Power, L.L.C. (the "Creditor"), and, each a "Party" and collectively the "Parties".

          Witnesseth:

          Whereas, Guarantor issued a certain guaranty dated as of September 12, 2002 in favor of Creditor relating to certain agreements or contracts between Strategic Energy, L.L.C. ("Strategic") and the Creditor, which guaranty was amended by that certain First Amendment to Guaranty, Second Amendment to Guaranty, Third Amendment to Guarantee, Forth Amendment to Guaranty and Guaranty Extension dated as of March 7, 2003, May 9, 2003, May 30, 2003, August 29, 2003 and September 11, 2003, respectively (as so amended, the "Guaranty"), and

          Whereas, Guarantor and Creditor wish to further amend the Guaranty as set forth below.

          Therefore, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual agreements herein contained, the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged by Guarantor and Creditor, the Parties agree as follows:

          1.          Guarantee Extension. The second sentence of Section 9 of the Guarantee hereby is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:

This Guaranty shall terminate on the first to occur of (a) ten (10) days after Creditor receives written notice from Guarantor of such termination, (b) the full payment of all Obligations, and (c) September 10, 2005 (the "Termination Date"). 

          2.           Reduction of Aggregate Liability. Section 11(b) of the Guaranty is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:

"(b)          Guarantor's aggregate liability to Creditor under this Guaranty is limited to and shall not exceed Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000)."

          3.           Effectiveness of Amendment. This Fifth Amendment shall be effective as of the date first above written. Except as specifically amended herein, the Guaranty shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms, and the Guaranty, as amended hereby, is hereby ratified and confirmed.

[signature page follows]

          In witness whereof, the Parties have signed this Fifth Amendment as of the date first written above.

Great Plains Energy Incorporated
Gangemi Law Firm, P.C. 

82 Wall Street 

Suite 300 

New York, New York 10005 

Telephone: (212) 425-0630 Facsimile: (212) 425-1421 

www.gangemilaw.com 

SALVATORE G. GANGEMI

DIRECT DIAL EXTENSION: 12 

EMAIL: sgangemi@gangemilaw.com 

December 20, 2007 

VIA ECF

Honorable Ronald L. Ellis, U.S.M.J. 

Daniel Patrick Moynihan 

United States Courthouse 

500 Pearl Street, Room 1970 

New York, New York 10007 

Re: Thompson v. Antonoff, et al. 

U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y. (07 Civ. 3008(PKC)(RLE))

Dear Magistrate Judge Ellis: 

 I represent the plaintiff in the above-referenced action, and as previously requested by the 

Court write to report on discovery concerning the jurisdictional issue before the Court. 

 This employment discrimination action alleges claims arising under Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, as amended, as well as supplemental claims arising under the laws of New 

York State and New York City. As the Court will recall, an issue in this case was whether the 

corporate defendant herein, Dynamic Air Conditioning, Inc., employed the requisite number of 

employees to be covered under Title VII. In fact, plaintiff’s discovery in this action was limited 

to this issue. Defendants provided some documents in response to plaintiff’s document requests, 

which appear to indicate that further discovery would not result in admissible evidence tending 

to show that defendant employed more than fifteen employees, as required to be a covered 

employer under Title VII. 

 Consequently, plaintiff shall send to defendants’ counsel a stipulation discontinuing this 

action “without prejudice” and subsequently submit it to the Court for consideration. Plaintiff 

intends to re-file his New York State and/or New York City claims in state court. 

 I thank the Court for its attention to this matter. 

 Respectfully yours, 

 Salvatore G. Gangemi 

Case 1:07-cv-03008-PKC-RLE Document 17 Filed 12/20/2007 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.49


                       ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION LETTER

                                October 28, 2003
Commerce Financial Group, Inc.
7650 Edinborough Way
Suite 160
Edina, MN 55435

Re:      1945 Steiger Lake Lane, Victoria, MN

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         This letter will certify that we have conducted a search of the real
estate that is the subject of the above-referenced project in an attempt to
determine if there are any environmentally hazardous substances on or about the
premises. That search has consisted of engaging Braun Intertech Corporation and
obtaining a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.

         It is therefore our opinion that to the best of the company's
information, knowledge, and belief, there are no pollutants or migrating
pollutants on or under the Mortgaged Property and that to the best of our
information, knowledge, and belief, no Hazardous Substances have been released
into the environment from the Mortgaged Property, and if any such Hazardous
Substances exist, HEI, Inc. shall and does hereby agree to fully indemnify and
hold harmless Commerce Financial Group, Inc. from any and all losses caused or
attributable to any such Hazardous Substances, and the company shall be willing
to execute an indemnity agreement specifically relating to such issue
substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

                                   Sincerely,

                                   HEI, INC.

                                   By: /s/ Douglas J. Nesbit
                                      ----------------------------
                                      Its: Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE>
                                                        EXHIBIT 11

                  BAIRNCO CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
	CALCULATION OF PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE
           FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996, 1995 AND 1994
<CAPTION>
                              1996          1995          1994       
<S>                           <C>           <C>           <C> 
PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE:

Net Income                    $ 8,335,000   $ 7,781,000   $ 7,255,000 

Average common shares
  outstanding                   9,753,000    10,433,000    10,500,000
Common shares issuable in
  respect to common stock
  equivalents, with a
  dilutive effect                  98,000         3,000           --     
Total common and common
  equivalent shares             9,851,000    10,436,000    10,500,000

Primary Earnings Per
  Common Share                $      0.85   $      0.75   $      0.69

FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS
  PER SHARE:

Net Income                    $ 8,335,000   $ 7,781,000   $ 7,255,000

Total common and common
  equivalent shares             9,851,000    10,436,000    10,500,000
Additional common shares
  assuming full dilution              --          4,000           --    
Total common shares assuming
  full dilution                 9,851,000    10,440,000    10,500,000

Fully Diluted Earnings Per
  Common Share                $      0.85   $      0.75   $      0.69

Earnings per share is based on the average number of shares outstanding
during each period.  Primary earnings per share includes all common stock
equivalents.  Fully diluted earnings per share includes all common stock
equivalents plus the additional common shares issuable assuming full
dilution.
</TABLE>
Exhibit 31(b)Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)I, Mark J. Plush, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Keithley Instruments, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  3. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting andthe preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accountingprinciples;  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and  d) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case ofan annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, andreport financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Date:      March 10, 2006 /s/ Mark J. Plush   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. REEVES

No. 78 PC.

Case below: 8 N.C. App. 47.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 24 June 1970.
Case 1:07-cv-03288-RPP Document 1-4 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03288-RPP Document 1-4 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. SS.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Annual Report of HEI, Inc. (the "Company") on
  Form 10-K/A for the year ended August 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities
  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony F. Fant,
  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
  U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
  of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

          (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/ ANTHONY J. FANT
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Anthony J. Fant
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


  Date: January 7, 2003






                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. SS.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Annual Report of HEI, Inc. (the "Company") on
  Form 10-K/A for the year ended August 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities
  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steve E.
  Tondera, Jr., Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer, Vice President Finance and
  Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted
  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
  my knowledge:

          (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/ STEVE E. TONDERA, JR.
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Steve E. Tondera, Jr.
                                            Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer,
                                            Vice President Finance and Secretary


Date: January 7, 2003
#### CARWELL v. WORLEY

No. 148 PC.

Case below: 23 N.C. App. 530.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 30 December 1974.
#### Michael MCCONNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 04-55220.

D.C. No. CV-03-05499-CT.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 31, 2005.*

Decided Feb. 2, 2005.

Lawrence D. Rohlfing, Rohlfing Law Firm, Santa Fe Springs, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Michael A. Cabotaje, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

*770Before FERGUSON, TASHIMA and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Michael McConner appeals the magistrate judge’s summary judgment affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security to deny him social security benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. The Commissioner adopted the findings of an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) that McConner was not disabled under the Act because he had the residual functional capacity to perform a significant range of light work. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse the judgment of the magistrate judge with instructions to remand to the ALJ for an award of benefits.

The ALJ improperly disregarded the opinion of Dr. Compton, McConner’s examining physician, and Dr. Moore, McConner’s treating physician. To disregard the uncontradicted opinion of an examining physician or a treating physician, an ALJ must provide clear and convincing reasons. *Lester v. Chater,*81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir.1995). If contradicted by another doctor, as here, an examining or a treating physician’s conclusions may be rejected only for specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record. *Id.*at 830-31. The ALJ did not provide specific and legitimate reasons for crediting the opinions of Dr. Ashley, Dr. Maze and Dr. Beirmore over the opinions of McConner’s examining and treating physicians. The ALJ therefore erred in disregarding the opinions of Dr. Moore and Dr. Compton.

We remanded this case to the Commissioner once before “for further consideration and for development of a sufficient record.” *McConner v. Halter,*15 Fed. Appx. 399, at *2 (9th Cir.2000). Because “substantial evidence does not support the [Commissioner’s] decision,” *Winans v. Bowen,*853 F.2d 643, 647 (9th Cir.1987), we reverse and remand this case for the payment of benefits. *Id.*

REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Convertible Promissory Note


Exhibit 10.2

Convertible Promissory Note







Date:

July 2, 2009




Principal Amount:

US$100,000













FOR VALUE RECEIVED Rival Technologies Inc. (herein called “Rival”) hereby promises to pay to Epsom Investment Services NV (herein called “Epsom”). The principal sum of US$100,000, with interest thereon of then percent (10%) per annum calculated annually. Principal and interest are due and will be paid ON DEMAND.




Notice of demand or presentment for payment are hereby waived. Rival may repay the principal and interest at any time without penalty.




Epsom may, at any time during the term hereof, choose to convert any or all of the principal and interest outstanding to common stock in Rival by providing written notice of conversion to its principal office in Las Vegas, Nevada (by fax or letter). The conversion price shall be the closing market value of Rival stock on the last trading day prior to the date Epsom provides Rival with notices.













Rival Technologies Inc.




/s/Douglas Thomas

Per: Douglas Thomas, CEO
Case 1:06-cv-14848-AKH Document 2 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
SCPW-23-0000711 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I 

CAMERON NICE and MARTHA NICE, Petitioners, 

vs. 

THE HONORABLE RANDAL VALENCIANO, 

Judge of the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit, 

State of Hawaiʻi, Respondent Judge. 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

(CASE NO. 5CCV-22-0000027) 

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, and Ginoza JJ., 

and Circuit Judge Kawamura, in place of Devens, J., recused)

Upon consideration of the motion for reconsideration and 

“Motion to Compel,” both filed on April 19, 2024, and the 

record, we construe both the motion for reconsideration and 

“Motion to Compel” to seek reconsideration of this court’s April 

2, 2024 order denying the petition. Petitioners’ 

reconsideration request is untimely because the request was 

filed more than ten days after the filing of this court’s 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-23-0000711

23-APR-2024

09:32 AM

Dkt. 47 ODMR
2 

April 2, 2024 order denying the petition. See Hawaiʻi Rules of 

Appellate Procedure Rule 40(a) (2000). 

 It is ordered that the motions are denied. 

This case is closed. It is further ordered that the 

appellate clerk shall not accept additional filings from 

Petitioners in this case. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, April 23, 2024. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald 

 /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

 /s/ Todd W. Eddins 

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza 

/s/ Shirley M. Kawamura
Case 1:06-cv-15137-AKH Document 2 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 101 Filed 11/15/2007 Page 1 of 3Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 101 Filed 11/15/2007 Page 2 of 3Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 101 Filed 11/15/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-15155-AKH Document 21 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-15155-AKH Document 21 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-15155-AKH Document 21 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-15155-AKH Document 21 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT 99.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Kinder Morgan, Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifiespursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-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; and

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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been providedto Kinder Morgan, Inc. and will be retained by Kinder Morgan, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

| Dated:  May 14, 2003 |  | /s/ C. Park    Shaper                                                   |  |
|--------------------------------|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|
|                                |  | C. Park Shaper    Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer |
#### STATE v. PARKER

No. 54 PC.

Case below: 16 N.C. App. 165.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 8 November 1972.
#### MOORMAN v. LITTLE

No. 11PC

Case below: 48 N.C. App. 742

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 4 March 1981.
1The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-3136

___________

In re Craig Petersen, *

*

Debtor. *

*

____________________________ *

*

*

James Edward Bachman, *

* Appeal from the United States

Appellant, * Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

* for the United States Court of

v. * Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

*

Joel Pelofsky, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 18, 2001

Filed: July 13, 2001 

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD and BYE, Circuit Judges, and GAITAN,1

District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.
2The Honorable John C. Minahan, Jr., United States Bankruptcy Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

-2-

James Edward Bachman, Esq., appeals from the order of the United States

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirming the bankruptcy court's2 award of attorney's fees

to Mr. Bachman in an amount less than he requested. Mr. Bachman argues that the

panel erred in holding that there was no error of law or fact in the bankruptcy court's

fee award and that in rejecting his claim the bankruptcy court denied him due process.

Having carefully considered the matter, we conclude that an extended discussion

of the matter is unnecessary and that there was no error in the panel's holding. We

therefore affirm on the basis of the panel's well-reasoned opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### COSTA DEL MAR SUNGLASSES, INC., Appellant, v. OAKLEY, INC., Appellee.

No. 05-1185.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 28, 2005.

ORDER

The appellant having failed to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by the rules, it is

ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
Case 1:07-cv-03248-JFK Document 18-2 Filed 11/20/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03248-JFK Document 18-2 Filed 11/20/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03248-JFK Document 18-2 Filed 11/20/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03248-JFK Document 18-2 Filed 11/20/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03248-JFK Document 18-2 Filed 11/20/2007 Page 5 of 5