alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment No. 7 to the Master Revolving Note



 Exhibit 10.5 
 



     Amendment No. 7 to Note 
  

 
 This Amendment No. 7 to Note
(“Amendment”), made, delivered, and effective as of June 29, 2011, by and between MANITEX LIFTKING, ULC (“Borrower”) and COMERICA BANK (“Bank”). 
 WHEREAS, Borrower and Bank are parties to that certain Master Revolving Note in the original principal amount of CDN $3,500,000 dated December 29, 2006, as amended (“Note”); and

 WHEREAS, Bank and Borrower desire to amend the Note as set forth below; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual promises contained in this Amendment, Borrower and Bank agree as follows: 

 

	1.	The face amount of the Note is now CDN $6,500,000. 

  

	2.	The Maturity Date of the Note is now April 1, 2015. 

  

	3.	The non-default interest rate applicable to the Note is now the Canadian Prime Rate plus one-half percent (.50%) per annum. 


 

	4.	The execution of this Amendment shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any Default or Event of Default. 


 

	5.	All the terms used in this Amendment which are defined in the Note shall have the same meaning as used in the Note, unless otherwise defined in this Amendment.


  

	6.	This Amendment is not an agreement to any further or other amendment of the Note. 


 

	7.	Borrower expressly acknowledges and agrees that except as expressly amended in this Amendment, the Note, as amended, remains in full force and effect and is ratified,
confirmed and restated. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and delivered this Amendment on the date set forth
above. 
  

									
	MANITEX LIFTKING, ULC	 		 	COMERICA BANK
					
	 By:
	 	 s/ David H. Gransee
	 		 	By:	 	 s/ James Q. Goudie III

					
	Its:	 	 VP & CFO
	 		 	Its:	 	 VP & AGM









 CONSENT OF GUARANTOR 

The undersigned consents to the foregoing amendment as of the date thereof and reaffirms and ratifies all of its obligations to the Bank
under its Guaranty of the Indebtedness of the Borrower to the Bank. 
  

			
	MANITEX, LLC
		
	By:	 	 s/ David H. Gransee

		
	Its:	 	 VP & CFO
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         166,994
<SECURITIES>                                    64,504
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,132,217
<ALLOWANCES>                                   189,862
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,176,929
<PP&E>                                      14,079,620
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,165,032
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,945,119
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,972,901
<BONDS>                                      5,494,549
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,221
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,462,448
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,945,119
<SALES>                                     25,303,069
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            25,303,069
<CGS>                                       21,007,387
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,007,387
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (721,286)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             923,879
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                928,501
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            928,501
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   928,501
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of DearbornBancorp Inc. on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-129769) of ourreports dated March 15, 2008 withrespect to the 2007 consolidated financial statements of Dearborn Bancorp, Inc. and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which reports are included in the 2007Annual Report on Form 10-K of Dearborn Bancorp, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007.         /s/ Crowe Chizek and Company LLC   Crowe Chizek and Company LLC      Grand Rapids, Michigan
EXHIBIT 32.1**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**In connection with the Quarterly Report of Payless ShoeSource, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending April 29, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Matthew E. Rubel, Chief Executive Officer and President, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Date: June 6, 2006                                                              /s/  Matthew E. Rubel   Matthew E. Rubel   Chief Executive Officer and President(Principal Executive Officer)
3XEOLF9HUVLRQRI%&,

3803,03(//(5&$67,1*35(6685(&217$,1,1*6667$,1/(6667((/



3,$==$52%(57

35,&(3803&203$1<

2WKHU

12

3XEOLF9HUVLRQRI%&,
 .*

<(6

12

 .*

 .*

,03257,1*7+,63$57)520&+,1$&2676

385&+$6,1*5$:0$7(5,$/$1'0$&+,1,1*,7'20(67,&$//<&267
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3226

CW Bearing USA, Inc:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Marilyn Kelly

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman,

 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

January 19, 2007 

Order 

 

January 19, 2007 

128034 (62) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 SC: 128034 

v COA: 250580 

Muskegon CC: 02-047915-FC 

SANDY SEAN HOLT, JR., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_____________________________________ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, the stipulated motion to suspend the briefing 

schedule is considered and it appear that the motion to expand the record has issued, the 

time for filing the supplemental briefs of the parties is extended to February 23, 2007.
[Cite as State ex rel. Thomas v. Harnett , 2019-Ohio-4044.]

COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE ex rel. DALON ANTHONY THOMAS, : JUDGES: : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Relator, : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. : Hon. Earle E. Wise, J. -vs- : : JUDGE CHRYSSA N. HARTNETT of the : Case No. 2019CA00091 STARK COUNTY COURT OF COMMON : PLEAS, : : Repondent. : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Mandamus

JUDGMENT: Dismissed

DATE OF JUDGMENT: September 30, 2019

APPEARANCES: For Relator For Respondent DALON A. THOMAS, Pro Se JOHN D. FERRERO #A324-811 Stark County Prosecuting Attorney London Correctional Institution P.O. Box 69 By: RONALD MARK CALDWELL London, Ohio 43130 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 110 Central Plaza South, Suite 510 Canton, Ohio 44702-1413Stark County, Case No. 2019CA00091 2

Baldwin, J. {¶1} On June 25, 2019, Dalon Thomas filed a petition for writ of mandamus to compel Judge Chryssa Hartnett to rule on his pending motion to withdraw guilty plea. This Court is permitted to consider facts outside the record to show that a case is moot. Miner

v. Witt , 82 Ohio St. 237, 239, 92 N.E. 21 (1910). Here, Judge Hartnett issued a Judgment Entry on July 11, 2019 denying Mr. Thomas’s Motion to Vacate Convictions and Withdraw

Plea. {¶2} The issuance of the Judgment Entry rendered Mr. Thomas’s writ of

mandamus moot. See State ex rel. Eubank v. McDonald, 135 Ohio St.3d 186, 2013-Ohio72, 985 N.E.2d 463, ¶1 (“Mandamus will not lie to compel an act that has already been performed.”) See also State ex rel. Scruggs v. Sadler, 102 Ohio St.3d 160, 2004-Ohio2054, 807 N.E.2d 357, ¶5; State ex rel. Richard v. Wells , 64 Ohio St.3d 76, 77, 591 N.E.2d 1240 (1992). Therefore, because Mr. Thomas’s writ of mandamus is moot it is dismissed. {¶3} The clerk of courts is hereby directed to serve upon all parties not in default notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. See Civ.R. 58(B).

By: Baldwin, J. Gwin, P.J. and Wise, Earle, J. concur.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 53 (Monday, March 20, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 14813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6944]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Commodity Futures Trading Commission

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, April 14, 1995.

PLACE: 2033 K St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 8th Floor Hearing Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-254-6314.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 95-6944 Filed 3-16-95; 2:49 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

Order 

December 27, 2018

156408

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 156408

COA: 330359

Berrien CC: 2014-004247-FH

KEVIN PATRICK KAVANAUGH,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On November 19, 2018, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave 

to appeal the July 6, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the 

application is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

WILDER, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I concur in denying appellant’s application for leave to appeal, but dissent from the 

majority’s decision to leave intact those aspects of the published Court of Appeals opinion 

holding or implying that when the trial court’s findings are based in part on facts 

established by video evidence, a trial court’s factual findings are entitled to less deference 

on appellate review. Instead, I would reiterate that factual findings of the trial court are 

reviewed for clear error. MCR 2.613(C); People v Bylsma, 493 Mich 17, 26 (2012) (“A 

ruling is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction 

that the trial court made a mistake.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

The Court of Appeals judgment states in part that “we need not rely on the trial 

court’s conclusions as to what the videotape contains.” People v Kavanaugh, 320 Mich 

App 293, 298 (2017). In the present case, the trial court declined to review the video before 

ruling on defendant’s motion to suppress. It is also unclear from the record the degree to 

which the trial court relied on the video evidence in denying defendant’s renewed motion 

to suppress. In my judgment, because there is uncertainty regarding whether the trial court 

made factual findings based on the video, to the extent the trial court’s factual findings 

were based on the video, the Court of Appeals could not have 
I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 December 27, 2018

p1226

2

Clerk

reviewed those factual findings for clear error. Therefore, the Court of Appeals’ assertion 

that it “need not rely on the trial court’s conclusions as to what the videotape contains” is 

obiter dictum that creates confusion about the appropriate standard of review of trial court 

factual findings. I believe that this statement is best vacated to avoid allowing an erroneous 

statement of law to have precedential effect pursuant to MCR 7.215(C)(2). 

MARKMAN, C.J., joins the statement of WILDER, J.
exv10w3






Exhibit 10.3




TERMINATION AGREEMENT




          This TERMINATION AGREEMENT dated as of July 4, 2011 (this “Agreement”) is by and among
Southern Union Company, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), Energy Transfer Equity,
L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the “Parent”), and George L. Lindemann
(“Consultant”).




          Reference is made to that certain Non-Competition, Non-Solicitation and Confidentiality
Agreement dated as of June 15, 2011 by and among the Company, the Parent and Consultant (the
“Non-Compete Agreement”). Pursuant to Section 14(e) of the Non-Compete Agreement, the
Company, the Parent and Consultant wish to amend and, at the same time, terminate the Non-Compete
Agreement.




          Accordingly, the Company, the Parent and Consultant hereby agree as follows:




          SECTION 1. Termination. Effective as of the date hereof, the Non-Compete Agreement
shall immediately terminate.




          SECTION 2. Release of Claims. Each party hereto does, for itself and for its
successors and assigns, hereby agree to waive, release, relinquish and forever release the other
parties hereto and their successors and assigns of and from all obligations, covenants, agreements,
promises, claims, demands, liabilities and causes of action whatsoever set forth in or arising
under the Non-Compete Agreement.




          SECTION 3. Amendment. This Agreement may not be amended or any provision hereof
waived or modified except in writing signed by each of the parties hereto.




          SECTION 4. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to
the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.




          SECTION 5. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in
accordance with, the laws of the State of Delaware, regardless of the laws that might otherwise
govern under applicable principles of conflicts of laws thereof.




          SECTION 6. Execution of Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed by the parties
hereto in separate counterparts (or upon separate signature pages bound together into one or more
counterparts), each of which, when so executed and delivered, shall be an original, but all such
counterparts shall together constitute one and the same instrument. Delivery of an executed
signature page to this Agreement by facsimile transmission shall be effective as delivery of a
manually executed counterpart hereof.




[signature page follows]





 









 








     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement as of the date first
written above.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	ENERGY TRANSFER EQUITY, L.P.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ John W. McReynolds
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	John W. McReynolds 	 
	 	 	Title:  	President and Chief Financial Officer 	 
	 
	 	SOUTHERN UNION COMPANY

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Eric Herschmann
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Eric Herschmann 	 
	 	 	Title:  	President and COO 	 
	 
	 	George L. Lindemann

 	 
	 	                                                   /s/ George L. Lindemann
 	 




[Signature
page to the Termination Agreement (Non-Compete)]
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended
December 31, 2003, of Synagro Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"), as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert C. Boucher, certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company and that the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                                                  /s/ Robert C. Boucher, Jr.
                                                  -----------------------------
                                                  Robert C. Boucher, Jr.
                                                  Chief Executive Officer and
                                                  Director
                                                  October 20, 2004
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion s h ould not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 96-20219

_______________________

BETTER ENTERPRISES CORPORATION, INC.,

Plaintiff - Counter Defendant - Appellant,

versus

QUANTUM CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Et Al,

Defendants,

QUANTUM CHEMICAL CORPORATION,

Defendant - Counter Claimant - Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(CA-H-94-1121)

_________________________________________________________________

April 10, 1997 Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

This court has considered appellant’s position in light

of the fine arguments of counsel, briefs, and pertinent portions of

the record. Having done so, we conclude, as did the district

court, that there was no meeting of the minds by the parties on the2

sale price of the ASP sufficient to form a contract. The issue was

appropriately tre ated as one of law because the parties’

negotiations occurred in writing. G ilbert v. Pettiette

, 838 S.W.2d

890, 893 (Tex. App. -- Hou. [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ). Better’s

“acquiescence” in a sale price of $850,000 lasted less than two

weeks until Better itself sought to change the price allegedly

based on omission of certain equipment from the sale. After that

point, the parties’ negotiations failed to produce an agreed sales

price, much less a signed contract with the required 50% down

payment.

The district court also correctly rejected Better’s DTPA,

negligent misrepresentation and fraud claims. The DTPA claims boil

down to allegations of breach of contract, which are not actionable

under the DTPA. Crawford v. Ace Sign , 917 S.W.2d 12 (Tex. 1996).

We are unpersuaded that Better produced evidence of fraudulent or

negligent misrepresentations by Quantum of the exact equipment

available or of Quantum’s intent to sell to Better.

The trial court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law is

therefore AFFIRMED

.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4085

Tianhai Electric North America:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 13, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3766

Cummins Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn