alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Note:  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1997 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001027574
<NAME> OUTSOURCING SOLUTIONS INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          35,110
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,028
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,186
<INVENTORY>                                     68,658
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               106,105
<PP&E>                                          87,561
<DEPRECIATION>                                  52,448
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 351,654
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           68,519
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     11,249
<COMMON>                                            53
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   351,654
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                63,842
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   68,596
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,523
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,277)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,496)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,781)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,781)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        
<PAGE>

</TABLE>
Cardero Resolurce Corp. - Exhibit 4.12 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com











December 5, 2013 


Cardero Resource Corp. 

Suite 2300 – 1177 West Hasting Street 

Vancouver, British Columbia V6E 2K3 



	
Attention:
		
Lawrence Talbot, Vice-President and General Counsel	



Dear Sirs: 


We refer to the Facility Letter dated December 5, 2013 among E.L. II Properties Trust (the “Trust”) and Kopple Family Partnership, L.P. (“Kopple LP”), as lenders, Cardero Resource Corp. (the
“Borrower”), as borrower, and Cardero Coal Ltd. (the “Guarantor”), as guarantor, with respect to a US$5,000,000 demand line of credit facility (the “Credit Facility”) provided to
the Borrower (the “Facility Letter”). 


Reference is made to paragraph 4.4 of the Facility Letter, wherein it is specified that all amounts outstanding under the Credit Facility shall be repaid by the Borrower within 24 months following the Closing Date. 


We confirm our agreement made today following the execution of the Facility Letter that paragraph 4.4 of the Facility Letter is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: 


“4.4      Repayment


All amounts outstanding under the Credit Facility shall be repaid by the Borrower within 25 months following the Closing Date (“Maturity”).  Interest is calculated on the applicable balance at the end of each day, compounded
quarterly and is payable in arrears, both before and after Maturity, firstly on December 31, 2013 and quarterly thereafter on the last day of March, June, September and December of each year.” 


Except as specifically amended hereby, the Facility Letter remains unamended and in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. 


This amendment to the Facility Letter may be executed in any number of counterparts and by different parties hereto in separate counterparts, each of which when so executed will be deemed to be an original and all of which taken together will
constitute one and the same agreement. A facsimile, PDF or similar form of any party’s signature hereto
will be effective as an original form of such signature. 


[Rest of page left blank intentionally.] 






- 2 - 

	 	Yours truly, 	 	 	  
	 	  	 	 	  
	 	THE LENDERS: 	 	 	  
	 	  	 	 	  
	 	  	 	 	  
	 	E.L. II PROPERTIES TRUST 	 	 	KOPPLE FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, L.P., 
	 	  	 	 	by its General Partner, 
	 	  	 	 	E.L. II PROPERTIES TRUST 
	 	  	 	 	  
	 	  	 	 	  
	Per:	(signed) Robert Kopple 	 	Per:	(signed) Robert Kopple 
	 	Name: Robert C. Kopple 	 	 	Name: Robert C. Kopple, 
	 	Title: Trustee 	 	 	Title: Trustee of the General Partner  


 

Each of the undersigned hereby acknowledges and agrees to the
terms and conditions of this amendment to the Facility Letter as of the date set
forth on page one. 

THE BORROWER: 

CARDERO RESOURCE CORP. 

 

	Per: 	(signed) Lawrence Talbot 	 
	  	Name: Lawrence Talbot 	 
	  	Title: Vice-President and General
      Counsel 	 


 

THE GUARANTOR: 

CARDERO COAL LTD. 

 

	Per: 	(signed) Lawrence Talbot 	 
	  	Name: Lawrence Talbot 	 
	  	Title: Vice-President and General
      Counsel
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

TRACI COLLINS,

Appellant, 

v.

LENA LAXTON,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-20-00041-CV

Appeal from the

53rd District Court

of Travis County, Texas

(TC# D-1-FM-15-006800)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal and 

concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed. We therefore dismiss 

the appeal. We further order costs are assessed against the Appellant. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(d). 

This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2020.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
#### Samuel VALENCIA-MENDOZA; Maria Refugio Sanchez-De Valencia, Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICES, Respondent.

Nos. 00-70503, INS [ AXX-XXXXXX ], INS [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 11, 2001.*

Submission vacated Oct. 11, 2001.

Resubmitted Nov. 19, 2002.

Decided Nov. 19, 2002.

Before BRUNETTI, RYMER and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Samuel Valencia-Mendoza and Maria Refugio Sanchez de Valencia, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the BIA’s decision denying their motion to reopen their proceedings *sua sponte*pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(a). They also appeal the BIA’s decision that notary fraud did not equitably toll the statute of limitations and restrictions upon the number of motions to reopen they could file under 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(c)(2). We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal to reopen, and otherwise affirm.

*892Although the case for which we deferred submission, *Socop-Gonzalez v. INS,*208 F.3d 838 (9th Cir.), *reh’g en banc granted,*229 F.3d 860 (9th Cir.2000), did not resolve the jurisdictional question presented here, *see Socop-Gonzalez v. INS,*272 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc), we have since held that this court lacks jurisdiction to review a claim that the BIA should have exercised its *sua sponte*power to reopen a deportation proceeding. *Ekimian v. INS,*303 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir.2002). As *Ekimian*controls, we cannot review the BIA’s decision not to reopen the Valeneia-Mendozas’ deportation proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(a).

The Valeneia-Mendozas also contend that reopening is supported by changes in the law regarding what constitutes an exceptional circumstance for failing to appear. However, they made no such argument to the BIA. We lack jurisdiction to hear unexhausted issues, *Rashtabadi v. INS,*23 F.3d 1562,1567 (9th Cir.1994), and therefore express no view on this point.

Finally, the Valeneia-Mendozas argue that their motion should have resulted in equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. We disagree. Their situation differs from that of the petitioners in *Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS,*282 F.3d 1218, 1221 (9th Cir.2002), *Socop-Gonzalez,*272 F.3d at 1182, *Varela v. INS,*204 F.3d 1237,1240 (9th Cir.2000), and *Lopez v. INS,*184 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir.1999), because the Valencia-Mendozas made a timely motion to reopen based on their notary’s conduct. The BIA considered this motion on the merits in 1995, and no petition for review from its decision denying that motion was filed. Thus, no basis for equitable tolling appears.

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.

**

 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.
Exhibit 1048(A)



		

			Exhibit 10.48

		




		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			PERFORMANCE-BASED SHARE UNIT GRANT
		

		
			 
		

		
			February 27, 2014
		

		
			 
		

		
			Dear:
		

		
			 
		

		
			Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Aqua America Inc. 2009 Omnibus Equity Compensation Plan, as amended and restated (the “Plan”), you have been granted performance-based share units as outlined below and in the attached Performance-Based Share Unit Grant Terms and Conditions.
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

			
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Granted To:

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Grant Date:

					
					
						February 27, 2014

				
	
					
						Target Award:

					
					
						__________ shares

				
	
					
						Vesting Date:

					
					
						February 27, 2017

				
	
					
						Performance Period:

					
					
						Period beginning on January 1, 2014 and ending on December 31, 2016

				
	
					
						Vesting Schedule and Performance Goals:

					
					
						The Target Award is subject to vesting based on continued service and achievement of performance goals, as set forth in the Performance-Based Share Unit Grant Terms and Conditions, including Schedule A attached thereto.

				



		
			 
		


		
			By my signature below, I hereby acknowledge and accept the award of this Performance-Based Share Unit Grant and the Performance-Based Share Unit Grant Terms and Conditions attached hereto and incorporated herein, and I agree to be bound by the terms of the Performance-Based Share Unit Grant, the Performance-Based Share Unit Grant Terms and Conditions and the Plan. I hereby agree that all decisions and determinations of the Committee (as defined in the Plan) with respect to the performance-based share units shall be final and binding.



Signature: ________________________________________    Date: __________________________
		

		 


		

			Note: If there are any discrepancies in the name or address shown above, please make the appropriate corrections on this form.

		


		

			 

		


		

			DB1/ 73876958.2
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6404 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6404

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 114 North Magnolia Street in Elmwood, Illinois, as the ``Corporal 
                    Benjamin Desilets Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 13, 2022

  Mr. LaHood (for himself, Mr. Garcia of Illinois, Ms. Underwood, Mr. 
 Foster, Mr. Rush, Mr. Casten, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, 
 Ms. Newman, Mrs. Bustos, Mr. Quigley, Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois, 
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi, Mr. Schneider, Mrs. Miller of Illinois, Mr. 
 Kinzinger, Mr. Bost, and Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                                 Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 114 North Magnolia Street in Elmwood, Illinois, as the ``Corporal 
                    Benjamin Desilets Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CORPORAL BENJAMIN DESILETS POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 114 North Magnolia Street in Elmwood, Illinois, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Corporal Benjamin Desilets Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Corporal 
Benjamin Desilets Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
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 of LILM, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George I. Norman, III,
Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Sec.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


/s/   GEORGE I. NORMAN, III
-------------------------------------
George I. Norman, III
Chief Executive Officer
April 17, 2007



     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906, or
     other document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the
     signature that appears in typed form within the electronic  version of this
     written  statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
     the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its
     staff upon  request.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-KSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
     Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title
     18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

RENALDO LAMAR WISE,

Appellant,

v.

Case No. 5D22-31

LT Case No. 2009-CF-2802

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

_______________________________/ 

Opinion filed April 26, 2022 

3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Marion County, 

Lisa D. Herndon, Judge. 

Renaldo L. Wise, Lake Butler, pro se. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. See Young v. State, 697 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 1997).

WALLIS, EISNAUGLE and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
10.18




LOAN
AGREEMENT
 July 30,
2008
 
 Richard N. Jeffs (the
“Lender”) of Flat 1, 49 Pont Street, London, SW1X 0DB, advanced US$200,000 (the “Principal
Sum”) to Red Lake Exploration, Inc. (the “Borrower”) of 10168 Lawson Drive,
Richmond, British Columbia, V7E 5M3.  The Lender advanced the funds on
July 30, 2008.
  The
Borrower agrees to repay the Principal Sum on demand, together with interest
calculated and compounded monthly at the rate of 8% per year (the “Interest”)
from July 30, 2008..  The Borrower is liable for repayment for the
Principal Sum and accrued Interest and any costs that the Lender incurs in
trying to collect the Principal Sum and the Interest.
  The
Borrower will evidence the debt and its repayment of the Principal Sum and the
Interest with a promissory note in the attached form.
  LENDER
                      
                      
                      BORROWERRichard N.
      Jeffs
                      
                      
                      Red Metal Resources
      Ltd.Per:
                      
                      
                      Per:/s/
      Richard
      N. Jeffs
                      
                      
                      /s/
      Caitlin JeffsRichard
      N. Jeffs
                      
                      
                      Authorized
      Signatory
 
 1
  PROMISSORY
NOTE
  Principal
      Amount:  US$200,000
              July 30,
      2008
  For value
received, Red Lake Exploration, Inc. (the “Borrower”) promises to pay on demand
to the order of Richard N. Jeffs(the “Lender”) the sum
of $200,000 lawful money of United States of America (the “Principal Sum”)
together with interest on the Principal Sum from July 30, 2008 (“Effective
Date”) both before and after maturity, default and judgment at the Interest Rate
as defined below.
 
 For the
purposes of this promissory note, Interest Rate means 8 per cent per
year.  Interest at the Interest Rate must be calculated and compounded
monthly not in advance from and including the Effective Date (for an effective
rate of 8.3% per annum calculated monthly), and is payable together with the
Principal Sum when the Principal Sum is repaid.
 
 The
Borrower may repay the Principal Sum and the Interest in whole or in part at any
time.
 
 The
Borrower waives presentment, protest, notice of protest and notice of dishonour
of this promissory note.
  BORROWERRed Metal Resources
      Ltd.Per:/s/
      Caitlin JeffsAuthorized Signatory
  2
#### Mrs. Myrtle Pondes GRISSOM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 7304.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

April 29, 1949.

Rehearing Denied June 6, 1949.

Ws T. Holloway, of Jonesboro, and William Bell, of Mangham, for appellant.

Theus, Grisham, Davis & Leigh, of Monroe, for appellee.

HARDY, Judge.

This is a suit in which plaintiff seeks to recover from the liability insurance carrier *127of a bus line operator for injuries sustained in an accident while a paying passenger on a bus. This suit was consolidated for trial and for submission on appeal with that of Elkins v. Travelers Indemnity Company, La.App., 41 So.2d 123.

The facts involved are set forth in our opinion this day rendered in the above styled case, and for the reasons set forth therein the judgment appealed from in this case is affirmed at appellant’s cost.
#### C. E. Thomas v. State.

No. 24692.

March 8, 1950.

*Alvin R. Allison*and *Earl R. Allison,*Levelland, for appellant.

*368
      *George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for driving a motor vehicle on a public highway while intoxicated, in which a fine of $50.00 was assessed.

The evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction. The appeal brings forward two bills of exception. The first of these complains of the testimony of a policeman who said that he weighed 320 pounds, that the defendant weighed about 145 pounds and that it would take no more beer to make the defendant drunk than it would him, the policeman. Further, the witness said, as recited in the bill, that he could not tell whether or not a man was drunk by smelling his breath, but could tell that the defendant was drunk by the way he acted, concluding, “Yes, I had him to walk.”

Objection to this is urged on the ground that it violates a constitutional provision in forcing him to produce evidence against himself, by forcing him to walk. We find nothing in the record to show when and where the policeman had him to walk, nor what the result was, nor that same is the basis for his conclusion that appellant was drunk. If an officer should arrest a man at any place other than in his cell it would be presumed he would have him to walk and we see no reason why he would not be permitted to observe that walk and testify as to the results. The many cases of foot prints, finger prints, etc., are in point.

The second bill complains of the testimony of a witness who said he saw a blue Mercury car driving recklessly at the very time alleged; that he saw it hit a truck and tear off a door; and that he saw the same car stopped in front of the funeral home. The witness further said that he did not know whether this defendant was driving that car or not. Objection was made that the witness had not identified the blue Mercury car about which he was testifying as being the one driven by the accused.

Standing alone there would be merit in this objection, but the evidence of the state shows that the policeman stopped appellant in such a car at that particular time and place. The evidence to which this objection was lodged was admitted by the court on a theory that it tended to impeach the evidence of the appellant, who said that he did not drive recklessly. The objec*369tion lodged to this evidence is not tenable and it would seem that the evidence is admissible, not only for the purpose offered but in support of the testimony of the officer, which testimony had been denied by the accused.

We find no reversible error and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from
financial  statements for the three month period ended March 31, 1995 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000075053
<NAME>                        D-lanz Development Group, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     $
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .00
        


</TABLE>