alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Systems Engineer Andres Rivera","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"nFWfoIe8Ft\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/systems-engineer-andres-rivera\/\">Systems Engineer Andres Rivera<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/systems-engineer-andres-rivera\/embed\/#?secret=nFWfoIe8Ft\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Systems Engineer Andres Rivera” — NASA\" data-secret=\"nFWfoIe8Ft\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/d2022_1011_rl0000482-1.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":450}
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LUKE ROBINSON.

June 13, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
Document

Exhibit 4.1


SIMILARWEB LTD. INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL CUSIP ORDINARY SHARES THIS CERTIFIES THAT *SPECIMEN* Is The Owner of ***SPECIMEN*** FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE ORDINARY SHARES OF SIMILARWEB LTD. Transferable on the books of the Corporation in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar. «Dated» ***** COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED: AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY, LLC Transfer Agent and Registrar By:_________________________ By: _________________________ AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE NUMBER «Number» SHARES «Number»










The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations. TEN COM - as tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT ...................... Custodian ....................... TEN ENT - as tenants by the entireties (Cust) (Minor) JT TEN ־as joint tenants with the right of Act ...................................................... survivorship and not as tenants (State) in common Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. For value received, ______________________________ hereby sell, assign and transfer unto PI-EASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE: (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) _________________________________________________________ shares of the capital stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint ________________________________________________________ , Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated ____________________ X _________________________________________________________________________________ THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THIS CERTIFICATE. THE SIGNATIJRE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (Banks. Stockbrokers, Savings and Loan Associations and Credit Unions). SIGNATURE GUARANTEED: TRANSFER FEE WILL APPLY
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Truman Harlow Stevens, Jr., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR-07-00488-01-PHX-NVW

CR-98-00391-01-PHX-NVW

DETENTION ORDER

A detention hearing and a preliminary revocation hearing on the Petition on

Supervised Release were held on September 27, 2010.

THE COURT FINDS that the Defendant has knowingly, intelligently, and

voluntarily waived his right to a detention hearing and a preliminary revocation hearing and

has consented to the issue of detention being made based upon the allegations in the Petition.

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the Defendant has failed to sustain his burden

of proof by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Rule 32.1(a)(6), FED.R.CRIM.P., that

he is not a flight risk. United States v. Loya, 23 F.3d 1529 (9th Cir. 1994).

IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant shall be detained pending further order of the

court.

DATED this 28th day of September, 2010.

Case 2:98-cr-00391-JAT Document 76 Filed 09/28/10 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:15-mj-01703-JFM Document 4 Filed 09/24/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01703-JFM Document 4 Filed 09/24/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01703-JFM Document 4 Filed 09/24/15 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Peter D. Mallahan,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-04340-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Freese & Goss PLLC - Birmingham, AL

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 1/23/2018, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: February 1, 2018 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9910 Filed 02/01/18 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9910 Filed 02/01/18 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             415
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   97,713
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,461
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                96,477
<PP&E>                                          35,940
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,850
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 201,517
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,831
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            70
<OTHER-SE>                                      79,713
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   201,517
<SALES>                                         61,559
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                61,559
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   54,707
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,833
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,466
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,554
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,432
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,122
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .32
        

</TABLE>
#### STANLEY SUSSMAN, ET UX. v. MORTON OSTROFF, ET AL.

June 27, 1989.

Petition for certification denied. (See 232 *N.J.Super.*306)
viot-ex411_253.htm



 

Exhibit 4.11

 

Termination Agreement

This Termination Agreement (this “Agreement”) was entered into on April 28, 2020, by and between:


	
Party A:
	
Lequan Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.




Address: 3-505, 4F, Building 1, No.35, Shangdi East Road, Haidian District, Beijing 

Party B:

CHEN Xiaoping, ID Card No.: ******


	
Party C:
	
Foshan Yunmi Electric Appliances Technology Co., Ltd.




Address: No.2, North Xinxi 4th Road, Xiashi Village Committee, Lunjiao Sub-district Office, Shunde District, Foshan (The Second Floor of Building No.1 and the Fourth Floor of Building No.7)

In this Agreement, the above parties are respectively referred to as a “Party” and collectively referred to as the “Parties”.

WHEREAS:

1. On July 21, 2015, Party A and Party C concluded the “Exclusive Consulting and Service Agreement” (hereinafter referred to as the “Exclusive Consulting and Service Agreement”);

2. On September 5, 2018, Party A, Party B and Party C concluded the “Exclusive Option Agreement” (hereinafter referred to as the “Exclusive Option Agreement”);

3. On September 5, 2018, Party A, Party B and Party C concluded the “Equity Pledge Agreement” (hereinafter referred to as the “Equity Pledge Agreement”);

4. On September 5, 2018, Party A, Party B and Party C concluded the “Shareholders’ Voting Proxy Agreement” (hereinafter referred to as the “Shareholders’ Voting Proxy Agreement”);

5. The Parties agree to terminate the aforesaid “Exclusive Consulting and Service Agreement”, the “Exclusive Option Agreement”, the “Equity Pledge Agreement” and the “Shareholders’ Voting Proxy Agreement” in accordance with the terms and conditions hereof.

The Parties hereby agree by consensus as follows:

1.The abovementioned “Exclusive Consulting and Service Agreement”, “Exclusive Option Agreement”, “Equity Pledge Agreement” and “Shareholders’ Voting Proxy Agreement” shall be terminated immediately as of the date hereof.

2. With effect from the date of termination, the rights and obligations of the Parties under the aforesaid “Exclusive Consulting and Service Agreement”, “Exclusive Option Agreement”, “Equity Pledge Agreement” and “Shareholders’ Voting Proxy Agreement” shall cease; and the Parties shall no longer enjoy or assume any rights, obligations and liabilities based on the aforesaid agreements. And the 

 



 

Parties acknowledge that there is no dispute over the above agreements and that they will not assert any rights against other parties based on such documents.

 

 



 

(This page contains no text and is the signature page of the termination agreement)

 


	
Lequan Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (Seal)
	
 

	
 
	
 

	
Legal Representative:
	
/s/ Authorized Signatory
	
 

	
 
	
 

	
Foshan Yunmi Electric Appliances Technology Co., Ltd. (Seal)
	
 

	
 
	
 

	
Legal Representative:
	
/s/ Authorized Signatory
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
CHEN Xiaoping
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Signature:
	
/s/ CHEN Xiaoping
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2501 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 660
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2501

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 73 South Euclid Avenue in Montauk, New York, as the ``Perry B. 
                       Duryea, Jr. Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 3, 2004

  Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mrs. Clinton) introduced the following 
      bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                          Governmental Affairs

                             July 22, 2004

               Reported by Ms. Collins, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 73 South Euclid Avenue in Montauk, New York, as the ``Perry B. 
                       Duryea, Jr. Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. PERRY B. DURYEA, JR. POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 73 South Euclid Avenue in Montauk, New York, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Perry B. Duryea, Jr. 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 Perry B. 
Duryea, Jr. Post Office.

                                                       Calendar No. 660

108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2501

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 73 South Euclid Avenue in Montauk, New York, as the ``Perry B. 
                       Duryea, Jr. Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 22, 2004

                       Reported without amendment
```
No. 87-6259.

#### Mohiuddin *v.*California.

Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist., dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Jamie Adkins","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/jamieladkins-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2\/","title":"Sounding Rockets","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"NCDrLJvjpF\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/sounding-rockets\/\">Sounding Rockets<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/sounding-rockets\/embed\/#?secret=NCDrLJvjpF\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Sounding Rockets” — NASA\" data-secret=\"NCDrLJvjpF\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
#### Amado A. SOTO, et al., Plaintiffs, Juan Enriquez, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W.J. ESTELLE, Director, Texas Department of Corrections; Lester H. Beaird, Warden, Darrington Unit, Rosharon, TX; Charles Avery, Jr.; H.H. Coffield, Former Chairman of the Texas Board of Corrections; James Marvin Windham, Forman Chairman of the Texas Board of Corrections; Raymond Procunier, Former Chairman of the Texas Department of Corrections; O.O. McCotter, Former Director of the Texas Department of Corrections; James A. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division; Alan Mitchell, Corrections Officer; Jack B. Pursley, Corrections Officer; James Michael Wilson, Corrections Officer; B.S. Hartnet; S.O. Woods, Director of the Bureau of Classification, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-20943.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided March 15, 2005.

Juan Enriquez, Tennessee Colony, TX, pro se.

Jacqueline Lee Haney, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The district court’s order dismissing the case was conditioned upon the parties *158reaching a final settlement agreement, and it gave the parties 90 days to move for reinstatement if a settlement agreement was not reached. Thus, the order was not a final, appealable order for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. *See Otis v. City of Chicago,*29 F.3d 1159, 1167 (7th Cir.1994); *see also Berke v. Bloch,*242 F.3d 131, 135 (3d Cir.2001). DISMISSED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### CEDAR COVE, ETC. v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION v. ALPHONSE STANZIONE.

September 6, 1989.

Petition for certification granted. (See 233 *N.J.Super.*336).
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.5(e)    
  



	 September 27, 2002
	

Louisiana-Pacific Corporation

850 SW Broadway, Suite 1200

Portland, Oregon 97205

Attn: Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	

Re:	
 	

Standby Purchase and Note Support Agreement, dated as of August 16, 1999 among Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, a Delaware Corporation ("L-P"), Bank of America, N.A., a national banking association
("BofA"), and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, a Canadian chartered bank ("CIBC") (as amended or modified from time to time including, without limitation,
 pursuant to the Waiver and First Amendment to Standby Purchase and Note Support Agreement, dated as of July 18, 2001, the Second Amendment to Standby Purchase and Note Support Agreement dated as of November 15, 2001, the Consent and Third
Amendment to Standby Purchase and Note Support Agreement dated as of December 30, 2001, and the Waiver and Fourth Amendment to Standby Purchase and Note Support Agreement dated as of July 23, 2002, the "Agreement").





Ladies
and Gentlemen: 


        L-P
has advised BofA and CIBC that it is entering into a Consent, Waiver and Amendment of even date herewith (the "Consent, Waiver and
Amendment") by and among L-P, BofA as Agent and as Lender and the other Lenders party to that certain Credit Agreement dated as of November 15, 2001 (as
amended or modified from time to time including, without limitation, by the Third Amendment dated as of August 2, 2002, the "Credit Agreement").
The Consent, Waiver and Amendment provides for a consent, waiver and amendment relating to certain provisions of the Credit Agreement as more fully set forth therein. A copy of the Consent, Waiver and
Amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 


        Because
the Agreement incorporates by reference certain of the provisions of the Credit Agreement without giving effect to any consent, amendment or waiver thereof unless consented to by
BofA and CIBC (the "Standby Lenders"), L-P has asked the Standby Lenders to consent to the execution by L-P of the Consent,
Waiver and Amendment. By their respective signatures below, BofA and CIBC hereby (i) consent to the Transaction (as defined in the Consent, Waiver and Amendment) and to the execution and
delivery of the Consent, Waiver and Amendment by the parties thereto and (ii) confirm that the principal amount of the LP Limited Loans (as defined in the Consent, Waiver and Amendment) will
not be counted for purposes of calculating the amounts of Investments permitted under Section 7.02(j) and Section 7.02(m) of the Credit Agreement. 



	 Very truly yours,	 
	
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.	

 
	

By:	

 	

 	

 
	 	
	 
	 	By:	 	 
	 	 	
	 
	 	Title:	 	 
	 	 	
	 






 

	
CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE	

 
	

By:	

 	

 	

 
	 	
	 
	 	By:	 	 
	 	 	
	 
	 	Title:	 	 
	 	 	
	 
	
ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:	

 
	

LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORPORATION	

 
	

By:	

 	

 	

 
	 	
	 
	 	By:	 	 
	 	 	
	 
	 	Title:	 	 
	 	 	
	 




2









QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.5(e)