alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.16
 SEVENTH AMENDMENT
TO
LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT
 SEVENTH AMENDMENT
 Recitals
 A.
 B.
 C.
 D.
 Agreement
 Now, Therefore
,
 1. Definitions.




---



##### 



2. Amendments to Loan Agreement.
 2.1 Section 2.2 (Acceptance of Receivables)
   2.2 Section 17 (Term and Termination).
  3. Limitation of Amendments.
 3.1 Section 2
 3.2
 4. Representations and Warranties.
 4.1
 4.2
 4.3




---



##### 



4.4
 4.5
 4.6
 4.7
 5. Counterparts.
 6. Effectiveness.




---



##### 



In Witness Whereof,
 BANK
    
    
    
    BORROWERSilicon Valley Bank
    
    
    
    Superconductor Technologies, Inc.By:
    
    /s/  Ben Fargo
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ William BuchananName:
    
    Ben Fargo
    
    
    
    
    
    Name:
    
    William BuchananTitle:
    
    VP/Relationship Manager
    
    
    
    
    
    Title:
    
    Controller




---



##### 



Schedule 1
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENT
AND REAFFIRMATION OF GUARANTY
 Section 1.
 Section 2.
 Section 3.
  GUARANTOR
    Conductus, Inc.By:
    /s/ William BuchananName:
    William BuchananTitle:
    Controller
EXHIBIT 31.1

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, James J. Cerna, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Lucas Energy, Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
     statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
     make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
     statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
     this quarterly report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
     material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
     flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this
     report;

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and have:

     a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
          material information relating to the registrant, including its
          consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
          entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly
          report is being prepared;
     b.   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c.   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
     persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a.   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and
     b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

6.   I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
     significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
     significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
     recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
     significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
12th day of February, 2007.


/s/ James J. Cerna
--------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer, Principal Accounting Officer
ex10_7.htm











Exhibit 10.7







Portions of this Exhibit have been omitted pursuant to a request for confidential treatment filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  The omissions have been indicated by asterisks (“*****”), and the omitted text has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.







AMENDMENT NO. 10












This Amendment No. 10 is made as of March 1, 2010 to the Subscription Fulfillment Agreement dated as of July 1, 1987 (the “Agreement”) between CDS Global, Inc. (“CDS Global”) with its principal place of business at 1901 Bell Avenue, Des Moines, Iowa 50315-1099, and Playboy Enterprises, Inc. (“Publisher”) with its principal place of business at 680 North Lake Shore Drive, 15th Floor, Chicago, Illinois  60611.  All terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.







The Agreement is hereby amended as follows:







1.           Section 2.3 (a) of the Agreement, as previously amended, is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:







“(a)           Basic Charge.







Cheshire Labels or Tape*







*****







***** will be added to the Basic Charge when pressure sensitive labels are requested.”







2.           Section 2.3 (f) of the Agreement, as previously amended, is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:







“(f)           Two (2) expire pulls (selection) per year will be provided at *****.”







3.           Except as expressly amended herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.







This Amendment No. 10 is hereby approved and accepted as of the date first above written on behalf of the parties to the Agreement as evidenced by the signatures of their duly authorized representatives:













	
CDS GLOBAL, INC.

	  	
PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES, INC.


	  	  	  	  	  
	
By:

	
/s/ Dennis Luther

	  	
By:

	
/s/ Scott G. Stephen


	  	
Dennis Luther

	  	  	
Scott G. Stephen


	  	
(print)

	  	  	
(print)


	
Title:

	
Vice President

	  	
Title:

	
EVP Print/Digital Group
**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**

|                                                             |        |                                                                                                 |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                             |   |                                                                                                 |   |
| Dated:  November                  14, 2007   | By:    | /s/ James                Fallacaro                                                              |   |
|                                                             |   | James                Fallacaro                                                                       |   |
|                                                             |   | President                  and Chief Executive Officer(Principal                  Executive Officer) |   |
|                                                             |   |                                                                                                 |   |

|                                                             |        |                                                                                                      |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                             |   |                                                                                                      |   |
| Dated:  November                  14, 2007   | By:    | /s/ David                R. Allen                                                                    |   |
|                                                             |   | David                R. Allen                                                                             |   |
|                                                             |   | Chief                    Financial Officer(Principal                    Financial and Accounting Officer) |   |
|                                                             |   |                                                                                                      |   |
#### Agristor Leasing-II, Respondent, v Chester Pangburn, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Defendant lessee appeals from an order granting plaintiff lessor’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that defendant breached an agreement for the lease of certain farming equipment. In granting summary judgment to plaintiff, the court dismissed defendant’s affirmative defense and counterclaim alleging fraud in the inducement and seeking rescission of the agreement and damages. That was proper.

Plaintiff established that it is entitled to summary judgment *961on the issue of agency. In support of its motion, plaintiff established by competent proof that it is an entity distinct from the dealer, the manufacturer and the parent corporation. Plaintiff also established that Wood, the salesman for the dealer with whom defendant dealt exclusively, was not plaintiffs employee. Defendant produced no competent evidence to refute that point and, indeed, his EBT testimony indicates that he knew that Wood was the agent of either the dealer or the manufacturer, not of plaintiff. Further, the lease agreement itself contains disclaimers that refute any agency relationship between plaintiff and the dealer or its salesman.

Similarly, the lease agreement contains disclaimers which preclude any claim of reliance upon alleged misrepresentations of Wood. While a general merger clause does not preclude parol evidence to show that fraudulent misrepresentations induced the contract, a fraud claim is precluded by a clause that specifically disclaims representations concerning the very matter to which the fraud claim relates *(see, Citibank v Plapinger,*66 NY2d 90, 94-95, *rearg denied*67 NY2d 647; *Wittenberg v Robinov,*9 NY2d 261; *Danann Realty Corp. v Harris,*5 NY2d 317; *Bonda v LNR Props.,*155 AD2d 922).

Additionally, the fact that defendant signed a payment deferral agreement bars him from challenging the original agreement on the ground of fraud. Whether under a waiver or ratification analysis, a party may not avoid an agreement on grounds of fraud if, after acquiring knowledge of the fraud, he affirms the contract by accepting a benefit under it *(Brennan v National Equitable Inv. Co.,*247 NY 486; *Gravenhorst v Zimmerman,*236 NY 22, 38; *see generally,*22 NY Jur 2d, Contracts, § 491, at 437-438). By signing the payment deferral agreement, defendant was allowed to continue using the equipment and his default in payments was excused. Since the basis for defendant’s fraud claim is that the equipment did not live up to Wood’s representations, there is no doubt that defendant accepted those benefits after acquiring knowledge of the alleged fraud.

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Lowery, J.—partial summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Exhibit 31.2

SARBANES-OXLEY
SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I,
Edward M. Krell, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mothers Work, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining 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 Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors:



Date:
December 14, 2007

|/s/EDWARD M. KRELL                                                |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Edward M. Krell Chief Operating Officer & Chief Financial Officer |  | 

---



QuickLinks
Order filed May 24 , 20 1 0.

In The


## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14

- 12

- 00 198

- CV

____________ ZULEIMA OLIVARES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF PEDRO OLIVARES, JR., AND PEDRO OLIVARES,

INDIVIDUALLY , Appellant s

V.

BROWN & GAY ENGINEERING AND MIKE STONE ENTERPRISES , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 334 th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2008

- 19417



### O R D E R

No reporter ’ s record has been filed in this case. The official court reporter fo r the

Court informed this c ourt that appellant had not made arrangements for payment for the

reporter ’ s record. On April 11, 2012, the clerk of this court notified appellant that we
would consider and decide those issues that do not require a repo rter = s record unless appellant, within 15 days of notice, provided this court with proof of payment for the

record. See T ex. R. App

. P. 37.3(c). Appellant filed no reply.

Accordingly, we order appellant to file a brief in this appeal on or before June 2 5,2

2012

. If appellant fails to comply with this order, the c ourt will dismiss the appeal for
want of prosecution.

PER CURIAM
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

August 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6628

Alo USA 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 did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
>3-8 >6-30 

± 0.20 ± 0.30 

t h 

± 0.80 ± 1.20 

3)- fktfi 

00000000g0290 I HI 

2201 9 

1111111111111111111111111111111111111 

.592 

06/T1804-2000 X k 

*CR 

# [11 

4335.2 

g 

>400-1000 

001- 

TG53.05 

1 . 20 

111 1 0530500000000 

X.-1-4ft 0.5-3 >30-120 >120-400 >1000-2000 >2000-4000 

1'4114 ± 0.10 ±0.10 ± 0.50 ±2.00 

k A 

I t 

*4•Pc
EXHIBIT 99.2


      REPORT OF THIGPEN, JONES, SEATON & CO., P.C., DATED JANUARY 28, 1999


[LETTERHEAD LOGO]
THIGPEN, JONES, SEATON & CO., P.C.


INDEPTENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT


Board of Directors
Three Rivers Bancshares, Inc. and Subsidiary


     We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Three Rivers
Bancshares,  Inc.  and  Subsidiary,  as of December  31,  1997,  and the related
consolidated  statements of income,  changes in shareholders'  equity,  and cash
flows for each of the two years in the period ended  December  31,  1997.  These
financial  statements are the  responsibility of the Company's  management.  Our
responsibility  is to express an opinion on these financial  statements based on
our audits.

     We conducted  our audits in accordance  with  generally  accepted  auditing
standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement.  An audit includes , assessing the accounting  principles used and
significant  estimates  made by  management,  as well as evaluating  the overall
financial  statement  presentation.  We believe our audits  provide a reasonable
basis for our opinion.

     In our opinion,  the consolidated  financial  statements  referred to above
present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Three Rivers
Bancshares,  Inc. and  Subsidiary  at December 31,  1997,  and the  consolidated
results  of its  operations  adn its cash flows for each of the two years in the
period ended December 31, 1997, in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles.


                                              Thigpen, Jones, Seaton & Co., P.C.


January 29, 1998
Dublin, Georgia
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JESSICA ROSE THOMAS, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-537

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed June 29, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee 

County; J. Frank Porter, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and William L. Sharwell, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

LaROSE, C.J., and SILBERMAN and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
#### Lawrence PAYNE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 62073.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

June 15, 1993.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 14, 1993.

Application to Transfer Denied Aug. 17, 1993.

David C. Hemingway, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John M. Saleeby, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before AHRENS, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

We find the motion court did not clearly err in denying Defendant’s Rule 27.26 (repealed) motion for post-conviction relief. Rule 27.26(j). We further find an opinion would have no precedential value and affirm by written order. Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum has been issued for the parties’ use only.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

SHARIF HOOKER,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 125 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 28th day of August, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
# 122

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS **AUSTIN**



### oQrrl6oa, OS Fnbllo



### 8, 

### but **not re** 

l that

### both ycur **guertiorrr:** l**r6 coo**  **QO 60**  or th8 **K0tOr wii0ie**  

## cdifit, being hue8 Bill RO. 407 Act6 

### &iOh l **>aarS 66**  **ArtiOb l&56**  

### Id4 Penal co60 or Terari BAaid a,- **ad6** 

### 86 **follcYwsr**

# 123

Hon.



### tion rogisterod or liceme& under t2w lam6 OS ttlr Stat6 thaa 6iieotlr6, nor to notor 

## vohloler

owned or cpratrd by the 

### 8oderal 

### Government

or any 0r it6 

### agonol66, **the** 

## Stat0 of TeXa6, OT -1, EPnlOlp61 gOVOT6-, ment **wh86** 

### maoh

aMOr 

## retfole **16** 

## 8aldto a **QW886 required**  **Under** thi6 **AOt** t0 proOUm l **06rfiiiC6t-O** Oi 

# titl., inPhiah went tha 

### prorirlimr horeof 8h811 **be full7**  

## oprratlwaoto6uoh**notor** ~ahi010~~ 

### ft 16 our oplnlon that tha abom p%ofad See 60 a~~a~l~~ooont~sq~ata6 

### th$ ~0 

### +tifi+! **Of Tit10**  

### 8hkt1 m **188Ue4 011**  **w WblClO**  **wl.66 6UOE**  **TO** 

### hi016 **18 registeronb**  ia Tana. -0 iaet t&t 6 nhiole 

### 16 registered in 

### rnothar 6t6t6, dO66 not or 8-86 **sake** 

### lt lnollglble ta bo regirtemd 

### 6180 ia %X66. It **ir our**  oplnlau that your **deportmeat** may aof'ls8t3e 

### a Certlfloak, of Tit16 

## oneuoh whloleregistered

ln **aaothor** 

## state

untilit 16 

### al60 tlr6t rr~lsters~ 

## la TQm6.

**?+RK;0b** 

## aY%nQQ Waltar. 8.gooh A8818t66t APPRCVEC~ 15, 1940



### APPROVED

n OPINION 

### *MMmFf 1.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-6376

Danieli Corporation:

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 did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel