alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.4

                     TERMINATION OF INTERCREDITOR AGREEMENT


     Cherokee Energy Partners LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Quest
Resource Corporation, a Nevada Corporation, and Quest Cherokee LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, agree that the Intercreditor Agreement dated July 20,
2005 shall be of no further force and effect.

Dated as of August 5, 2005

CHEROKEE ENERGY PARTNERS LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company


/s/ Daniel R. Revers
----------------------------
Name:  Daniel R. Revers
Title:  President



QUEST RESOURCE CORPORATION,
a Nevada Corporation


/s/  Jerry D. Cash
----------------------------
Name: Jerry D. Cash
Title: Chairman and CEO



QUEST CHEROKEE, LLC
a Delaware limited liability company


/s/  Jerry D. Cash
----------------------------
Name: Jerry D. Cash
Title: Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4051 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4051

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to permit eligible veterans to 
              receive direct access to chiropractic care.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2004

  Mr. Filner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to permit eligible veterans to 
              receive direct access to chiropractic care.

    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 ``Better Access to Chiropractors to 
Keep our Veterans Healthy (Back Our Veterans Health) Act''.

SEC. 2. EXPANDED CHIROPRACTOR SERVICES AVAILABLE TO VETERANS.

    (a) Medical Services.--Paragraph (6) of section 1701 of title 38, 
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
            ``(G) Chiropractic services.''.
    (b) Rehabilitative Services.--Paragraph (8) of such section is 
amended by inserting ``chiropractic,'' after ``counseling,''.
    (c) Preventive Health Services.--Paragraph (9) of such section is 
amended--
            (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (F) through (K) as 
        subparagraphs (G) through (L), respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new 
        subparagraph (F):
            ``(F) periodic and preventative chiropractic examinations 
        and services;''.

SEC. 3. DIRECT ACCESS FOR VETERANS TO CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting after section 1710B the following new section:
``Sec. 1710C. Direct access to chiropractic services
    ``(a) The Secretary shall permit eligible veterans to receive 
needed medical services, rehabilitative services, and preventative 
health services from a licensed doctor of chiropractic on a direct 
access basis at the election of the eligible veteran, if such services 
are within the State scope of practice of such doctor of chiropractic.
    ``(b) The Secretary shall not discriminate among licensed health-
care providers in the determination of needed services.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
1710B the following new item:

``1710C. Direct access to chiropractic services.''.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Kiran Patel, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Solectron Corporation on Form 10-Q for
the three-month period ended February 25, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form
10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Solectron Corporation. Date: April 14, 2005 /S/     Kiran PatelKiran PatelExecutive Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer
Amended Restricted Stock Grant Agreement



 Exhibit 10.15 
  
 AMENDED RESTRICTED STOCK GRANT AGREEMENT 
  
 THIS AMENDED RESTRICTED STOCK GRANT AGREEMENT (the “Amended Agreement”) is made as of this 22 day of July 2005,
between RASER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (“Company”) and TIMOTHY FEHR, (“Employee”). 
  
 RECITALS 
  
 WHEREAS, Company and Employee entered into a certain Restricted Stock Grant Agreement (the “Agreement”) on February 25, 2004, that the parties now desire to mutually amend as set forth below; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, in view of the foregoing recitals which are incorporated as a
part of this Amended Agreement, and in consideration of the terms and conditions of this Amended Agreement, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 
  

	 	11.	Paragraph 1 and 6 of the Agreement is amended as follows: 

  
 From the date of this Amended Agreement all shares to be issued to Employee under the Agreement, shall be modified from an issuance of Restricted Shares
outside of the Company’s 2004 Long-Term Stock Incentive Plan, to an issuance of Registered Shares within the Company’s 2004 Long-Term Stock Incentive Plan as pre-approved by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. Employee
remains an officer of the Company and all common shares granted to Employee shall continue to be subject to rules and regulations affecting officers of public companies with respect to common share ownership. 
  

	 	2.	Paragraph 2 is amended to delay vesting of 100,000 shares to be issued on February 1, 2006 as follows: 

  

			
	2/8/06	  	 25,000 Registered Shares

	2/15/06	  	 25,000 Registered Shares

	3/8/06	  	 25,000 Registered Shares

	3/15/06	  	 25,000 Registered Shares


  

	 	3.	All other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. To the extent any provisions of the Agreement conflict with the provisions of this Amended Agreement,
this Amended Agreement shall govern. 

  
 IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, Company and Employee have executed this Amended Agreement effective as of the date first set forth above. 
  

									
	 COMPANY:
	 	 	 	 EMPLOYEE:

			
	 RASER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
	 	 	 	 
					
	 By
	 	 /s/ Brent M. Cook
	 	 	 	 By
	 	 /s/ Timothy D. Fehr

			
	 Its: Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 	 Timothy Fehr
#### Licking River Lumber & Mining Company *v.*George H. Bowlesby, etc.

Corporations — Service of Process.

Where process was served oil all the persons designated as agents of the defendant corporation in the, county, the court has jurisdiction to render judgment.

APPEAL PROM MORGAN CIRCUIT COURT.

January 7, 1873.

*372
      *Phister, for appellant.*

*Rodman, Hazelrigg, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

We are inclined to concur in the opinion of the court below that the evidence discloses such an agency upon the part of the parties who were served with process in this case as authorized a judgment against the company.

The company had an office at Bangor, and their prospectus holds out that point as the principal location of their business operations. Hays Meyer is the bookkeeper in their store. Whitcomb was their agent in receiving lumber, and Baldwin, who was one of the original" incorporators, and also a stockholder, was the general agent in making contracts for lumber. No other persons are designated or named as the agents of the company in Morgan County, and process having been served upon all three, the court acted properly in rendering the judgment.

The judgment of the court below is *affirmed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-01-2000
<CASH>                                         888,316
<SECURITIES>                                   183,088
<RECEIVABLES>                                  290,257
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,261
<INVENTORY>                                    136,859
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,525,993
<PP&E>                                         236,995
<DEPRECIATION>                                 110,073
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,718,322
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          228,750
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,078,535
<OTHER-SE>                                     411,037
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,718,322
<SALES>                                        600,058
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               600,058
<CGS>                                          260,373
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  165,433
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 351
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                193,080
<INCOME-TAX>                                    59,855
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            133,225
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   133,225
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.00


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

RICHARD G. BATES, CAROLE A. BATES AND STEPHANIE BARKER,

Petitioners

v.

ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES INC., BRENNTAG NORTHEAST, INC., BARLEY SNYDER, LLP, BARNES & THORNBURG,

LLP AND MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS,
LLP,

Respondents

PETITION OF: RICHARD G. BATES,

BATES AND STEPHANIE BARKER :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 650 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 4th day of May, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in this Registration Statement of our report dated April 24, 1998, for
the three months ended March 31, 1998, and for the period from inception (April
22, 1997) through December 31, 1997, and to all references to our Firm included
in this Amendment No. 2 to the Registration Statement on Form S-4.



                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Dallas, Texas
May 15, 1998
10249.

#### Thomas *v.*Scott.

Decided April 19, 1919.

Certiorari; from Gordon superior court—Judge Tarver. November 2, 1918.

*F. A. Cantrell, Neel, Finley & Neel,*for plaintiff in error.

*A. L. Henson,*contra.

Luke, J.

1. Permissive use of a private way not over fifteen feet in .vidth may ripen into prescriptive rights thereto. See *Kirkland*v. *Pittman,*122 *Ga.*256, 259 (50 S. E. 117) and cases cited.

2. The evidence in this ease was conflicting, but the ordinary who heard the case was authorized to render judgment requiring removal of obstructions from the private way. Eor no reason assigned did the judge of the superior court err in the judgment overruling the certiorari.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.*
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T M I CH A EL SH A W N RO CH ESTER, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. L I N D A R O W E , M D ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 17772 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 8 - c v - 0 4 7 4 7 - RS ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia R i c ha r d S e e bor g, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry21, 2012 ** B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , M cK E O W N , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C a l i f orni as t a t e pr i s one rM i c ha e l S ha w n R oc he s t e rappe a l s pr o s e f r om the d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t d is m is s in g h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n f o rf a ilu r e to p ro secu t e. W e h av e j u ri sd i ct i o n u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e rev i ew fo r an ab u se 

# FI LED MA R 07 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 17772 2 o f d is c r e tio n . A s h v . Cv e tkov , 7 3 9 F. 2 d4 9 3 , 4 9 5 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 8 4 ) . W e a f f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on bydi s m i s s i ng the a c t i on w i tho utprej ud i ce af

t eri tw arned R ochest erthatfa i l ure t o fi l e an am ended c o m p la in t c o u ldr e s u lt in d is m is s a l, a n dg r a n te da n e x te n s io n o f tim e to c o m p ly w ith its o r d e r . See id . at49 6-97 (l i st i ng fa ct ors t o con si der before di sm i ss i ng an a c t i on f orl a c k of

pr os e c ut i on a nd e xpl a i ni ng tha t“ [ a ] r e l a t i ve l ybr i e f pe r i od of del ayi s s uffi ci entt o j ust i fy ” adi sm i ss alw i tho utprej ud i ce for f ai l ure t o p rose cut e) . W e d o n o t co n sid erR o ch es ter’s c o n ten ti o n s c o n ce rn in g th e d istrict co u rt’s o r d e rg r a n tin g d e f

e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n to d is m is s . See id . at49 7-98 (i nt er l ocut ory o r d e r s a r e n o t ap p e a lab le a f te rd is m is s a l w ith o u t p r e ju d ic e f o rf a ilu r e to p r o s e c u te ) . A F F I R M E D .
#### CAROLINA BUILDERS CORP. v. ALEXANDER SCOTT GROUP

No. 122PA97

Case below: 125 N.C.App. 615

Petition by defendants for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 allowed 5 June 1997.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of Illinois

Attorney Appearance Form

Case Title: Case Number: 

An appearance is hereby filed by the undersigned as attorney for:

Attorney name (type or print): 

Firm: 

Street address: 

City/State/Zip: 

Bar ID Number: Telephone Number: 

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

(See item 3 in instructions)

Email Address:

Are you acting as lead counsel in this case?

Are you acting as local counsel in this case?

Are you a member of the court’s trial bar?

If this case reaches trial, will you act as the trial attorney? 

If this is a criminal case, check your status. Retained Counsel

Appointed Counsel 

If appointed counsel are you 

a Federal Defender

 CJA Panel Attorney

______________________________________________________________________

In order to appear before this &ourt an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this &ourt’s

general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by local rules 83.12 through 83.14.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Under 28 8.6.&§1746, this

statement under perjury has the same force and effect as a sworn statement made under oath.

Executed on

Attorney signature: S/

(Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically.)

Revised 8/1/2015

In Re: TIKTOK, Inc., a

Consumer Privacy Litigation

20-cv-04699

Gilda Avila (on behalf of minor A.R.); SEE ATTACHMENT

Shannon M. McNulty

Clifford Law Offices, P.C.

120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3100

Chicago, IL 60602

6281984 312-899-9090

smm@cliffordlaw.com

September 11, 2020

✔

✔

✔

✔

Shannon M. McNulty

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 64 Filed: 09/11/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:1561
An appearance is hereby filed by the undersigned as attorney for: 

Mikhaila Woodall on behalf of minors C.W. and I.W.

Misty Hong

Meghan Smith

Laurel Slothower on behalf of minor A.S.

Lynn Pavalon on behalf of minor R.P.

Cherise Slate on behalf of minor P.S.

Brenda Washington on behalf of minor M.W.

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 64 Filed: 09/11/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:1562
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEC FORM
10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                              13
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      241
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          3
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   254
<PP&E>                                           5,561
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,760)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,112
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              439
<BONDS>                                          1,180
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,945
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,837)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,112
<SALES>                                            912
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   896
<CGS>                                              548
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      548
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    93
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  71
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    184
<INCOME-TAX>                                        53
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                131
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       131
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.24<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.24
<FN>
<F1>(EPS-PRIMARY) DENOTES BASIC EPS.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
No. 15,324.

#### Deacon *v.*Van Nuys.

Filed Oct. 29, 1891.

From the Boone Circuit Court.

*T. J. Terhune*and *B. 8. Higgins,*for appellant.

*T. W. Loekhart,*for appellee.

Elliott, J. —

The appellee’s complaint proceeds upon the theory that he furnished materials to the appellant for the construction of a house, and that he is entitled to enforce a material man’s lien. The appellant contests the right asserted by the appellee upon the ground that the materials'were not furnished directly to him, but were furnished to a contractor. The question is, therefore, one of fact to be determined upon the evidence.

The familiar rule that this court will accept as controlling the evidence which the trial court received as trustworthy restricts our investigation to the question: Is there any evidence sustaining the finding of the trial court? We find no difficulty in saying that there is such evidence.

It is true that the materials were originally ordered Uy Carr, the contractor, but they were delivered directly to Deacon, and by him they were taken from the appellee’s place of business. There was, also, other testimony indicating that the sale of the materials Was made to the appellant and *not to*Carr. We can not overthrow the decision of the trial court for the sole reason that Carr gave the order for the materials. A contractor may order materials for the owner, and if he does so, he is the owner’s , agent. Ordinarily, an order by the.contractor does not bind the owner as the primary promisor, but there may be facts which show that the contractor in giving the order acted for the owner, and that, we think, is true of this case.

Judgment affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

HANGZHOU CHIC INTELLIGENT 

TECHNOLOGY CO. and UNICORN 

GLOBAL, INC., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CHEAPAANZEE, et al., 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 1:20-cv-04806 

FILED UNDER SEAL

DECLARATION OF ARTHUR TAN-CHI YUAN IN SUPPORT OF 

PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION FOR ENTRY OF A 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

I, Arthur Tan-Chi Yuan, on behalf of Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co. and 

Unicorn Global, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”), submit this Declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte 

Motion for Entry of a Temporary Restraining Order, and declare as follows: 

1. I am senior counsel at Loeb & Loeb LLP and am admitted to practice in this District 

and Illinois. I have personally reviewed all of the materials provided in the attached Exhibits. 

2. On or about August 13, 2020, one unit of the Infringing Products was sold in 

Chicago, Illinois by Defendant PHILADELPHIABESTDEALS on eBay. True and correct copies 

of the confirmation email showing purchase order is attached as Exhibit 1. 

3. On or about August 13, 2020, one unit of the Infringing Products was sold in 

Chicago, Illinois by Defendant PURER on Amazon.com. True and correct copies of the 

confirmation email showing purchase order is attached as Exhibit 2. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/18/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:1511
 2 

4. On or about August 13, 2020, one unit of the Infringing Products was sold in 

Chicago, Illinois by Defendant CHO INTERNATIONAL INC on Walmart.com. True and correct 

copies of the confirmation email showing purchase order is attached as Exhibit 3. 

5. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of the unpublished decision cited 

in Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of a Temporary 

Restraining Order. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Dated: August 18, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/Arthur Tan-Chi Yuan 

 Arthur T. Yuan, Esq. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 19 Filed: 08/18/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:1512
Exhibit 13.3

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of Inmarsat Group Limited (the "Company") for the annual period ended
December 31, 2004 (the "Periodic Report"), I, Andrew Sukawaty, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |  | /s/ANDREW SUKAWATYAndrew Sukawaty Chief Executive Officer
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------

Date:
April 29, 2005

---



QuickLinks