alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99 
                          FOOTHILL CAPITAL CORPORATION



December 30, 1996 


Town & Country Corporation 
Town & Country Fine Jewelry Group, Inc. 
Gold Lance, Inc. 
L.G. Balfour Company, Inc. 
25 Union Street 
Chelsea, Massachusetts 02150 

Re: Waiver of Event of Default with respect to the "Non-Compliance Items"
as defined below

Gentlemen: 

     Reference is made to the Loan Agreement dated as of July 3, 1996 (as the
same heretofore may have been amended or modified, the "Agreement") between
Foothill Capital Corporation ("Lender") and Town & Country Corporation, Town &
Country Fine Jewelry Group, Inc., Gold Lance, Inc., and L.G. Balfour Company,
Inc. (collectively, "Borrower"). Terms used herein and not otherwise defined
herein shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in the Agreement.

     Borrower has advised Lender that Borrower is not in compliance with Section
6.13(b) of the Agreement on November 24, 1996, because Borrower failed to
maintain the minimum Consolidated Tangible Net Worth required therein at all
times (the "Non-Compliance Items"). Borrower has asked Lender to waive any Event
of Default that may have been occasioned by the Non-Compliance Item. Lender
hereby waives any Event of Default that may have been occasioned solely by the
Non-Compliance Item.

     The waiver of the Non-Compliance Item is limited to the specifics hereof,
shall not apply with respect to any facts or occurrences other than those on
which the Non-Compliance Item is based, shall not excuse future non-compliance
with the Agreement (as it may from time to time be amended), including Section
6.13 thereof, and except as expressly set forth herein, shall not operate as a
waiver or an amendment of any right, power or remedy of Lender, nor as a consent
to any further or other matter, under the Loan Documents.

     This waiver shall not be effective until Lender advises Borrower in writing
that Lender has obtained any consents that Lender may need or require from
participants of Lender.

Cordially, 

Foothill Capital Corporation 


By: /s/  Anthony Aloi             
Name:  Anthony Aloi 
Title: Assistant Vice President 

<PAGE>
 


December 30, 1996 


Mr. Robert Hannon 
Town & Country Corporation 
25 Union Street 
Chelsea, MA 02150 

Dear Bob: 

     This letter should serve as notice that Foothill Capital has received
proper consent from our participants and the "Waiver of Event of Default with
respect to the Non-Compliance Items" dated December 30, 1996, is now effective.
Sincerely

/s/ Anthony Aloi 
Anthony Aloi 
Assistant Vice President 

CC:  Donna Compagna, CIT 
     Alan Ghole, FINOVA Capital Corporation 
     Kevin Vaughan, Textron Financial Corporation 
     Britt Terrell, Coast Business Credit
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1794 

To amend the Federal Direct Loan Program to provide that interest shall 

not accrue on Federal Direct Loans for active duty service members 

and their spouses. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 17, 2007 

Mr. BAYH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Direct Loan Program to provide that 

interest shall not accrue on Federal Direct Loans for 

active duty service members and their spouses. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Interest Relief Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. NO ACCRUAL OF INTEREST FOR ACTIVE DUTY 

6 SERVICE MEMBERS AND THEIR SPOUSES. 

7 Section 455 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

8 U.S.C. 1087e) is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing: 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 1794 IS

1 ‘‘(m) NO ACCRUAL OF INTEREST FOR ACTIVE DUTY

2 SERVICE MEMBERS AND THEIR SPOUSES.— 

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other 

4 provision of this part, and except as provided in 

5 paragraph (3), interest on a loan made under this 

6 part shall not accrue for an eligible borrower. 

7 ‘‘(2) ELIGIBLE BORROWER.—In this subsection, 

8 the term ‘eligible borrower’ means an individual— 

9 ‘‘(A) who is— 

10 ‘‘(i) serving on active duty during a 

11 war or other military operation or national 

12 emergency; or 

13 ‘‘(ii) performing qualifying National 

14 Guard duty during a war or other military 

15 operation or national emergency; or 

16 ‘‘(B) who is the spouse of an individual de17 scribed in subparagraph (A). 

18 ‘‘(3) LIMITATION.—An individual who qualifies 

19 as an eligible borrower under this subsection may re20 ceive the benefit of this subsection for not more than 

21 60 months.’’. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

The Honorable Gordon J. Quist, Senior United States District Judge ***

for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AVRAHAM MORE-YOSSEF,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-71690

Agency No. A072-301-429 

 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Department of Homeland Security 

Submitted October 11, 2012** 

Pasadena, California

Before: KLEINFELD and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and QUIST, Senior

District Judge.*** 

Avraham More-Yossef, a native and citizen of Israel, petitions for review of an

order of the Department of Homeland Security reinstating a June 10, 2007, order of

FILED

OCT 18 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

removal against More-Yossef. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review

reinstatements of prior orders of removal, see Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486

F.3d 484, 495-98 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc), and we dismiss in part and deny in part

the petition for review.

The reinstatement order complies with immigration regulations. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 241.8.

We lack jurisdiction to consider More-Yossef’s collateral challenge to his prior

expedited removal order. See Garcia de Rincon v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 539 F.3d

1133, 1136, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2008).

PETITION DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.
<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

I, Gregory E. A. Morrison, President and Chief Executive Officer of Platinum
Underwriters Holdings, Ltd., hereby certify to the best of my knowledge and
belief that this Annual Report on Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of Platinum Underwriters Holdings, Ltd.

Date: March 12, 2004                       /s/  GREGORY E. A. MORRISON
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Gregory E. A. Morrison
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000768216
<NAME>                        National Air Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<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>                          7,987
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       738
<OTHER-SE>                                     (8,725)
<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>                                   (12)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.01)
        



</TABLE>
** **

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549

 

**FORM 10-Q**

 

(MarkOne)

[X]   QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TOSECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008

 

or

 

[]   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the transition period from _________to _________

 

Commission file number 0-14187

 

CONSOLIDATED CAPITALINSTITUTIONAL PROPERTIES/3, LP

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

55 Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina  29602

(Address of principal executive offices)

 

(864) 239-1000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to befiled by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during thepreceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was requiredto file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements forthe past 90 days.  

[X]Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, anaccelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reportingcompany.  See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “acceleratedfiler” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule12b-2 of the Exchange Act). [ ] Yes  [X] No
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1822 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1822

To amend the Federal Direct Loan Program to provide that interest shall 
not accrue on Federal Direct Loans for active duty service members and 
                             their spouses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 19, 2007

   Mr. Bayh introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Federal Direct Loan Program to provide that interest shall 
not accrue on Federal Direct Loans for active duty service members and 
                             their spouses.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Interest Relief Act''.

SEC. 2. NO ACCRUAL OF INTEREST FOR ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE MEMBERS AND 
              THEIR SPOUSES.

    Section 455 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087e) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(m) No Accrual of Interest for Active Duty Service Members and 
Their Spouses.--
            ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        this part, and except as provided in paragraph (3), interest on 
        a loan made under this part shall not accrue for an eligible 
        borrower.
            ``(2) Eligible borrower.--In this subsection, the term 
        `eligible borrower' means an individual--
                    ``(A) who is--
                            ``(i) serving on active duty during a war 
                        or other military operation or national 
                        emergency; or
                            ``(ii) performing qualifying National Guard 
                        duty during a war or other military operation 
                        or national emergency; or
                    ``(B) who is the spouse of an individual described 
                in subparagraph (A).
            ``(3) Limitation.--An individual who qualifies as an 
        eligible borrower under this subsection may receive the benefit 
        of this subsection for not more than 60 months.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### James Lee CROSS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 44429.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 21, 1971.

*217E. Brice Cunningham, Dallas, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Robert T. Bas-kett, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

This is an appeal from a robbery conviction where the punishment was assessed by the jury at 50 years following appellant’s plea of guilty.

In his sole ground of error appellant contends, as we understand it, that there is a fatal variance between the indictment which charged the offense of robbery by assault with firearms and the verdict, judgment and sentence reflecting that appellant had been found guilty of robbery by assault.

At the outset we note that a conviction may be had for robbery by assault under an indictment charging robbery by assault with firearms. See Busby v. State, 143 Tex.Cr.R. 72, 157 S.W.2d 394; Tomlin v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 207, 233 S.W.2d 303; Fields v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 498, 272 S.W.2d 120; Foreman v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 57 S.W. 843. It would thus appear to be no fatal variance as contended.

Further, the record reflects the State not only did not seek the death penalty, cf. Smith v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 455 S.W.2d 748, but prior to trial filed a motion to delete from the indictment the words “and then and there by using and exhibiting a firearm, to-wit: a gun.” The docket sheet reflects the court granted “the motion to delete.”

Thereafter the appellant entered his plea of guilty to robbery by assault before the jury after being duly admonished of the consequences of his plea. Such a plea to a felony charge before a jury admits the existence of all facts necessary, to establish guilt. Darden v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 430 S.W.2d 494, and cases there cited.

The court thereafter instructed the jury that appellant was charged with “robbery” and to find him guilty upon his plea of guilty and to assess his punishment at “life or any term of years not less than five.” The judgment subsequently entered contains the following:

> “Upon written motion of the District Attorney, the following wording of the indictment, ‘and then and there by using and exhibiting a firearm, to-wit: a gun’ is hereby dismissed.”

Under these circumstances, there was certainly an effective waiver of the firearms portion of the indictment.

*218Cases cited by the appellant to the effect that an accused cannot be convicted of an offense not charged in the indictment or information, etc., are not here in point.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Ruth Patricia PATMORE, Respondent, v. James Dale PATMORE, Appellant.

No. KCD 26338.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Kansas City District.

Dec. 3, 1973.

James L. Muller and Charles D. Wilson, The Legal Aid and Defender Society of Greater Kansas City, Inc., Kansas City, for appellant.

C. B. Fitzgerald, Warrensburg, for respondent.

Before DIXON, C. J., and PRITCH-ARD and SOMERVILLE, JJ.

PER CURIAM:

From the award of a divorce to Ruth Patmore in the circuit court of Johnson County, the husband-defendant appeals. He contends that his attorney erroneously waived his desire to contest the action, causing the court to overrule his motions for a continuance and an order to allow his presence at the trial. Because he is a prisoner in the federal penitentiary at Marion, Illinois, he contends he was denied due process of law.

This court need not reach appellant’s contention. A review of the record reveals that appellant’s attorney stated to the court that his client had advised him that he did not wish to contest the divorce. He also advised the court that appellant did not claim to be the father of respondent’s child or that he had adopted him. Such admissions are binding on the appellant. See Noel v. Roberts, 449 S.W.2d 572 (Mo.1970); Wenneker v. Frager, 448 S.W.2d 932 (Mo.App.1969); and Gibson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 147 S.W.2d 193 (Mo.App.1941).

The action of the trial court, overruling appellant’s motions and awarding a divorce to Ruth Patmore, were not clearly erroneous.

The judgment is affirmed.
912 ’ 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Konorablo D. ElOhard Pogetrr 

County Attornrr 

Mlroll aoullty 

Plorortills, Tens 

n64r sir; 

In 7our lotter 

OPT opinion in msponm 

ml Co& read8 4s followa: 

0 Stat6 or any ottiosr 

aity, prooinet sohool 

hpal subdlriolor: of 

rlnitp or ulthin the third degree by oonaxngulnlty to the person 60 appointing or EO rotlng, or to 44 other rsrilbar OS any such board, 
Honorable D. Bfohard VOgeS, F464 2 

the Legial4ture, or OOUZ% Or whloh mUOh psrson so appointing or voting may be 4 mmber, 

when the 8414ry, reoa, or oonipensatioa 0r euoh 

appointee is to be pal& ror, direotly or lnafreotly, out 0r or from pubm funds 0r ms 

0r 0rri00 0r any kind or oheraotsr whatsoever.- 

Article8 2603 and 2750, Revlard Cloil Statutes, 

provfde for the approval of teaohers' oontraote by the 

county. 8uperlntendent. For the reaeoM given below, it 

18 uunrcessary her UB to daterdne rrhetbftr the approval 

oi teaohbra' oontraot8 by the superlntendsat constitutes 

4 Ooeilrnation of the appofntnent or employmnt OS suoh 

teaohrrr. 

From 4 oareful reqdlng of raid Art1010 4SZ, it 

appears that the prohibition of the statute 1s not against 

the employauent 0r pareons related to the orricer who oonfirm the l mploymeat but msrely prohibits the appolntumt 

or oonflrmation of prrtsona related wlthln certain degrees 

to the Ofilcbra appointing or Voting for the appointniant 

or unploynmnt: 

In 4 latter opinion, dated Ootober 8, 1935, to 

J. E. Frle8trri44 County Attorney, Joe 5. Alsup, Aeslstant 

Attornrx con& l x p r em4 wl oontrery flew. i:e a&r44 with 

the lottar opinlom Or Scott Oblnbs, AEslst4nt Attorney 

General, to zoo Eocasland, County Attorney, dated Deotimber 

15, 193l, and Fi. 8. AndtJrBon, Asalrtant Attorney &metal, 

to Pona J. Jaobon, Goantp Attornq, dated Catober 15, 193s. 

holding that nlatlonehlps suoh an Is involved ln the present 

lrutanor do not fall within the nepotism rtatutse. 

In our opinion Art1018 432, Fen41 Code does not 

apply to .thlr ultuatlon and your queatlon is theretore an4mma Im the 4rrwatiy0. 

Yours very truly 

ATME??BY GE3JEiAL OF TEXAS 

BY kg@-+ 

Glenn E. L4wls GRLtr Assistant 

APPROVEDbfAY 2, 1940 

ATTORNEY GENERAL Or' TEXA3
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 175 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 175

To provide for a feasibility study of alternatives to augment the water 
supplies of the Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District and cities 
                        served by the District.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 2007

  Mr. Inhofe introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a feasibility study of alternatives to augment the water 
supplies of the Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District and cities 
                        served by the District.

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

SECTION 1. CENTRAL OKLAHOMA MASTER CONSERVATORY DISTRICT FEASIBILITY 
              STUDY.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
            (1) Thunderbird Lake, located on Little River in central 
        Oklahoma, was constructed in 1965 by the Bureau of Reclamation 
        for flood control, water supply, recreation, and fish and 
        wildlife purposes;
            (2) the available yield of Thunderbird Lake is allocated to 
        the Central Oklahoma Master Conservatory District, which 
        supplies municipal and industrial water supplies to the cities 
        of Norman, Midwest City, and Del City, Oklahoma; and
            (3) studies conducted by the Bureau during fiscal year 2003 
        indicate that the District will require additional water 
        supplies to meet the future needs of the District, including 
        through--
                    (A) the drilling of additional wells;
                    (B) the implementation of a seasonal pool plan at 
                Thunderbird Lake;
                    (C) the construction of terminal storage to hold 
                wet-weather yield from Thunderbird Lake;
                    (D) a reallocation of water storage; and
                    (E) the importation of surplus water from sources 
                outside the basin of Thunderbird Lake.
    (b) Study.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation shall conduct a 
feasibility study of alternatives to augment the water supplies of the 
Central Oklahoma Master Conservatory District and cities served by the 
District, including recommendations of the Commissioner, if any.
    (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation $300,000 
to conduct the study under subsection (b).
                                 <all>
```