alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

Exhibit 10.6

            SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE 2002 AMENDED SERVICING AGREEMENT

     THIS AMENDMENT ("Amendment") is made this 5th day of December, 2002, to
that certain 2002 Amended Servicing Agreement ("Agreement") by and between
BOSTON SERVICE COMPANY, INC. ("BSC" ) and AUTO LENDERS LIQUIDATION CENTER, INC.
("Auto Lenders").

BACKGROUND

     BSC and Auto Lenders wish to amend the Servicing Agreement by reflecting
the agreed upon Servicing Fee for the calendar year 2005. All other terms and
conditions remain in full force and effect.

Amendment to Paragraph 9--Consideration

     This Paragraph shall be amended as it pertains to the Guarantee Fees found
under Paragraph B(iv) in which the agreed upon Servicing Fees for the calendar
year 2005 will be as follows:

     The 2005 Servicing Fee of $400,000 per month for the period 1/01/05 through
12/31/05, and quarterly payments of $600,000 payable to Auto Lenders on March 1,
June 1, September 1, and December 1 during the calendar years 2003 and 2004. In
year 2005, quarterly payments of $400,000 would be payable to Auto Lenders on
March 1, June 1, September 1, and December 1.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, BSC and Auto Lenders have caused this Second Amendment
to the 2002 Amended Servicing Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized
corporate officers and their corporate seals to be affixed hereto the day and
year written beneath their signatures below, each intending this Amendment shall
become effective on the date first written above.

                                         AUTO LENDERS LIQUIDATION CENTER, INC.

Attest: /s/ Kathleen M. Dragg            By: /s/ Michael J. Wimmer
        ---------------------               ----------------------
[Assistant] Secretary                    Title: President

(Corp. Seal)                             Dated: 1/22/03

                                         BOSTON SERVICE COMPANY, INC.
                                         t/a HANN FINANCIAL SERVICE CORP.


Attest: /s/ Jeri L. Dooley               By: /s/ Charles L. Dovico
        ------------------                   ---------------------
[Assistant] Secretary                    Title: President

(Corp. Seal)                             Dated: 1/22/03
No. 13,535.

#### Rund *v.*Sprague.

Supreme *Court.*— Weight *of Evidence.*— Reversal *of Judgment.*— Practice.— A judgment will not be reversed upon the mere weight of the evidence.

From the Tippecanoe Circuit Court.

*G. O. Behm*and *A. O. Behm,*for appellant.

*B. W. Langdon*and *T. F. Gaylord,*for appellee.

Olds, J. —

This was an action brought by the appellee against the appellant to recover damages for the wrongful and unlawful detention of the real estate described in the complaint.

Answer of general denial; trial by the court, without the intervention of a jury, and finding and judgment for appellee for seventy-five dollars.

*457Filed Feb. 23, 1889.

Motion for a new trial for the statutory causes questioning the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding, which motion was overruled and exceptions reserved to the ruling of the court on the motion for a new trial, and this ruling is the only error assigned.

It is sufficient to say we have carefully examined the evidence in this case, and there is sufficient evidence to support the finding of the court. There is no error for which there should be a reversal of the judgment.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, and five per cent, damages.
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the
Form 10-K/A) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form
10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-K/A.
 Date: April 28, 2006
    
    /s/ Erik R. MartinezErik R. Martinez
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 21.1


                          LIST OF AFFILIATED COMPANIES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    STATE OF
              Company Name                                            INC.
              ------------                                          --------
<S>                                                             <C>
                                                                     FLORIDA
 1. AMERICAN TRANSINSURANCE GROUP, INC.                             DELAWARE
 2. ATG REINSURANCE LTD.                                        TURKS&CACOS ISLD
 3. CAPACITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC.                             PENNSYLVANIA
 4. CHEMICAL LEAMAN CORPORATION                                   PENNSYLVANIA
 5. CHEMICAL LEAMAN TANK LINES, INC.                                DELAWARE
 6. CHEMICAL PROPERTIES, INC.                                     PENNSYLVANIA
 7. CLM, INC                                                        DELAWARE
 8. CLT SERVICES, INC.                                              DELAWARE
 9. CLTL OF NEVADA                                                   NEVADA
10. ENVIROPOWER, INC.                                               DELAWARE
11. FLEET TRANSPORT COMPANY                                         DELAWARE
12. LAKESHORE LEASING, INC.                                          INDIANA
13. LEVY TRANSPORT LTEE                                              CANADA
14. LLI. INC.                                                       DELAWARE
15. MEXICO INVESTMENTS, INC.                                         FLORIDA
16. MTL DE MEXICO                                                    MEXICO
17. MTL INVESTMENTS INC.                                             CANADA
18. MTL OF NEVADA                                                    NEVADA
19. PICKERING WAY FUNDING. INC.                                     DELAWARE
20. POWER PUIRCHASING INC.                                          DELAWARE
21. QSI SERVICES, INC.                                              DELAWARE
22. QUALA SYSTEMS, INC.                                             DELAWARE
23. QUALITY CARRIERS, INC.                                          ILLINOIS
24. QUALITY DISTRIBUTION, INC                                        FLORIDA
25. TRANSPLASTICS, INC.                                             DELAWARE
</TABLE>
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability 

Litigation

No. 2:15-MD-02641-DGC

ORDER

Upon consideration of Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc.’s and Bard Peripheral Vascular, 

Inc.’s (collectively, “Bard”) Motion and Memorandum in Support of Motion in Limine No. 1

to Exclude Evidence of Recovery® Filter Complications And Other Complications That Are 

Not Substantially Similar To The Incident At Issue, the Court hereby finds that the motion 

should be GRANTED. 

IT IS ORDERED that any evidence, testimony, or argument regarding other incidents 

and complications involving other Bard IVC filters, including the Recovery® Filter, as 

described in Bard’s motion, shall be excluded from trial in this case unless and until Plaintiffs 

prove, outside of the presence of the jury, that each other incident or complication is 

substantially similar to the alleged incident at issue in this case.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9862-2 Filed 01/26/18 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
pertaining to the Supplemental Stock Option Plan, including Amendment No. 1
(Form S-8 No. 333-09569), the 1994 Stock Plan, including Amendment No.1 (Form
S-8 Nos. 333-39863, 333-66091 and 333-72678), the Employee Stock Purchase Plan,
including Amendment No. 1 (Form S-8 Nos. 333-66091 and 333-72678), the 1997
Supplemental Stock Plan, including Amendment No. 1 (Form S-8 Nos. 333-23901 and
333-66091), the Registration Statement, including Amendment No. 1 thereto (Form
S-3 No. 333-24097) and in the related prospectus of Geoworks Corporation for the
registration of 1,282,754 common shares, and the Registration Statement (Form
S-3 No. 333-50746) and in the related prospectus of Geoworks Corporation for the
registration of 3,377,437 common shares of our report dated May 1, 2002 (except
for Note 14, as to which the date is June 11, 2002), with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Geoworks Corporation included in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2002.


                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

San Francisco, California
June 26, 2002


58
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2310

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KRIS PLETSCHKE, d/b/a Raw Health, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-03-214-1) Submitted: March 24, 2005 Decided: March 29, 2005 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kris Pletschke, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Josephs, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Kris Pletschke appeals the district court’s order entering default judgment against him. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Pletschke , No. CA-03-214-1 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 13, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 

 On the Court’s own motion, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Preclude Damages Expert (Doc. 

236) is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine for the preparation of 

a Report and Recommendation. 

 Dated this 15th day of March, 2019. 

Honorable Steven P. Logan 

United States District Judge 

Keith Early, et al., 

 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

State of Arizona, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-16-00031-PHX-SPL 

ORDER 

 

Case 2:16-cv-00031-SPL-DMF Document 256 Filed 03/15/19 Page 1 of 1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfredo HERRERA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-5005.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Feb. 11, 2005.

David E. O’Meilia, U.S. Attorney Allen J. Litchfield, Office of the United States Attorney, Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michael G. McGuire, Tulsa, OK, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SEYMOUR, HARTZ and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. RApp. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Defendant Alfredo Herrera appeals the district court’s order of detention pending trial. On July 15, 2004, the magistrate judge held a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). Based on the evidence at the hearing, the magistrate judge ordered that Mr. Herrera be detained pending trial because he was a flight risk. In November, Mr. Herrera filed a motion to re-open the detention hearing, arguing that he had discovered new evidence that would impact the court’s detention determination. On December 1, the magistrate judge held another hearing. At the close of the hearing, the magistrate judge issued an order releasing Mr. Herrera pending trial based on the new evidence presented. The government appealed, arguing that Mr. Herrera had not presented any new evidence that would justify the magistrate judge’s release order.

On December 20, the district court held a hearing to review the magistrate judge’s orders. On December 23, the district court entered an order detaining Mr. Herrera pending trial. The district court determined that the magistrate judge’s release order should be revoked and that the detention order should be reinstated be*889cause there was no new evidence to justify re-opening the hearing. Alternatively, the district court held, based on its independent review, that there was clear cause to detain Mr. Herrera pending trial because he was a flight risk and a danger to the community. Mr. Herrera now appeals from the district court’s order.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c). Having reviewed the briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we conclude that the district court correctly decided this case. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its Order filed December 23, 2004.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 3.1b

                               AMENDMENT TO THE
                             AMENDED AND RESTATED
                        CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF
                      NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE CO.


TO:      THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF OKLAHOMA
         State Capitol Building
         Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105


         The undersigned Oklahoma corporation, for the purpose of amending its
Certificate of Incorporation as originally filed on March 5, 1987, and amended
and restated on March 15, 1990, and further amended on June 17, 1994, as
provided by Section 1077 of the Oklahoma General Corporation Act, hereby states
as follows:

         1.  The name of the corporation is: National Environmental Service Co.

         2.  The date of filing its original Certificate of Incorporation with
the Secretary of State of Oklahoma was March 5, 1987. Said Certificate of
Incorporation was subsequently amended and restated and an Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation was filed with the Secretary of State of Oklahoma
on March 15, 1990, and further amended on June 17, 1994.

         3.  That Article One is hereby amended to read as follows:

                  "FIRST:  The name of the corporation is NESCO, Inc."


         4.  All other provisions of the Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation of the Corporation not amended hereby shall remain in full force
and effect.

         5.  This Amendment to the Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation was set forth in a resolution duly adopted by the Board of
Directors, which declared the adoption of the Amendment to be advisable and
which ordered that the Amendment be considered by the shareholders of the
Corporation entitled to vote thereon.

         6.  Such Amendment was duly adopted in accordance with Sections 1073
and 1077 of the Oklahoma General Corporation Act by the written consent of the
holders of a majority of all of the issued and outstanding shares of voting
stock of the Corporation, in lieu of a special meeting thereof, on November 5,
1999.

         7.  Such Amendment shall not become effective until December 27, 1999.

38
<PAGE>

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said National Environmental Service Co., has caused
its corporate seal to be affixed hereto and this Amendment to be signed by its
President and Secretary this 8th day of December, 1999.

                                           NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE CO.

ATTEST:


By:_____________________________           By:_________________________________
   Larry G. Johnson, Secretary                  James Howell, President

39
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Quick Start Guide to Payload Design","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Gw8KRqZg6q\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/station\/quick-start-guide-to-payload-design\/\">Quick Start Guide to Payload Design<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/station\/quick-start-guide-to-payload-design\/embed\/#?secret=Gw8KRqZg6q\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Quick Start Guide to Payload Design” — NASA\" data-secret=\"Gw8KRqZg6q\" 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\/2020\/10\/pd_guide_cover.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":857}
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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Alfonso Antillon, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Experian Information Solutions 

Incorporated, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-16-00035-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

 The Court, having reviewed the parties’ Stipulation for Dismissal with prejudice, 

(Doc. 37), and good cause appearing, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc., only, 

is dismissed with prejudice. Each party shall bear his or its own attorneys’ fees 

and costs included herein. 

Dated this 23rd day of March, 2016. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge

Case 2:16-cv-00035-DLR Document 39 Filed 03/23/16 Page 1 of 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-85,417; TA-W-85,417A]

                    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on August 18, 2014, applicable to workers of West Linn Paper Company, a subsidiary of Belgravia Investments, Inc., including on-site leased workers from Galt Foundation, West Linn, Oregon (TA-W-85,417). The Department's Notice of Determination was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on September 9, 2014 (Volume 79 FR Page 53450).                

At the request of a state workforce office, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The firm is engaged in the production of coated paper.

The investigation confirmed that worker separations at Columbia River Logistics, Inc. (CRL), including on-site leased workers from Resource Staffing, Vancouver, Washington, (TA-W-85,417) are attributable to increased imports of coated paper, as are worker separations at the West Linn, Oregon facility.

The amended notice applicable to TA-W-85,417 and TA-W-85,417A is hereby issued as follows:

“All workers of West Linn Paper Company, a subsidiary of Belgravia Investments, Inc., including on-site leased workers from Galt Foundation, West Linn, Oregon (TA-W-85,417) and Columbia River Logistics, Inc., including Resource Staffing, Vancouver, Washington (TA-W-85,417A) who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after July 8, 2013 through August 18, 2016, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on the date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.”

Signed in Washington, DC this 9th day of October, 2014.

Michael W. Jaffe,

Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2014-25683 Filed 10-28-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P