alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71447-71448]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28367]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Members of SGIP 2.0, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 27, 2014, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Members of SGIP 2.0, Inc. 
(``MSGIP 2.0'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, PowerHub Systems, Blacksburg, VA; London Hydro, London, 
United Kingdom; Telecommunications Technology Association, Seongnam-
City, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea; Utility Integration Solutions 
Organization, Fort Washington, PA; and Advanced Energy

[[Page 71448]]

Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, have been added as parties to this 
venture.
    Also, International Business Machines Corporation, Yorktown 
Heights, NY; Quadlogic Controls Corp., Long Island City, NY; UCA 
International Users Group, Raleigh, NC; Amzur Technologies, Inc., 
Tampa, FL; Pacific Data Bank Security, Delta, British Columbia, Canada; 
Kkrish Energy LLC, Colorado Springs, CO; Analysis Group, Inc., Boston, 
MA; and Inman Technology, Cambridge, MA, have withdrawn as parties to 
this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and MSGIP 2.0 intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On February 5, 2013, MSGIP 2.0 filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on March 7, 2013 (78 FR 14836).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on August 4, 
2014. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on September 3, 2014 (79 FR 52363).

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-28367 Filed 12-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.20




                                   AMENDMENT
                                       to
        MOTOROLA AUTHORIZED TWO-WAY RADIO DEALER AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT")
                                    between
                          MOTOROLA, INC. ("Motorola")
                                      and

                       BearCom Operating L.P. ("Dealer")



     Effective the Motorola Signature Date shown below, Motorola and Dealer
agree to amend the Agreement as follows:

     A.   Section 7 of the Agreement is entitled "Sales Performance". The third
paragraph of subparagraph (b) of Section 7 which begins "Due to such things as
the......." and ends ".......catalog sales or similar activities." is replaced
in its entirety with the following:

     "Due to such things as the importance of customer contact in connection
     with the sales of the Products, Dealer shall not promote, advertise, or
     sell the Products outside of Dealer's Area through mail order, phone bank
     solicitation, catalogue sales, or similar activities. "Similar activities"
     include but are not limited to the promotion, advertisement or sale of the
     Products through use of any type of on-line computer service (e.g., World
     Wide Web, Internet, etc.).

     Except as amended by the foregoing, the Agreement remains in effect in
accordance with all its existing terms, conditions and amounts.

<TABLE>
<S>                                                    <C>
     MOTOROLA, INC.                                                   DEALER

                                                          PAGE COM GP INC

By: /s/ LEO ZIMINSKY                                 By:  /s/ JOHN P. WATSON, Pres.
   ---------------------------------------               ------------------------------------------
         (Authorized Signature)                                  (Authorized Signature)

        Leo Ziminsky
   ---------------------------------------               ------------------------------------------
              Print Name                                               Print Name

        V.P. and General Manager                          General Partner of Bearcom Operating LP
   ---------------------------------------               ------------------------------------------
              Print Title                                              Print Title

             SEP 20 1996
   ---------------------------------------               ------------------------------------------
           Signature Date                                             Signature Date
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 15

Case: 1:20-cv-05191 Document #: 33-2 Filed: 12/10/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:395
From: Brezina, David

To: "patrickwaynefarms@outlook.com"; "patrickwaynefarms@consultant.com"

Bcc: "dbrezina@rcn.com"

Subject: Wayne Farms Order

Date: Friday, September 25, 2020 5:59:00 PM

Hello Patrick:

I represent Wayne Farms. Legal papers were filed and a court prohibited you from using a fake

profile and taking orders – and deposits on orders – using Wayne Farms trademarks.

Free copies of the public documents are available on

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18476666/wayne-farms-llc-v-john-doe/

For a copy of the Court Order, the Temporary Restraining Order itself is at:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.385677/gov.uscourts.ilnd.385677.14.0.pdf

Please Reply to this email so I know you have seen this email.

Call me to see if we can settle.

David C Brezina

Registered Patent Attorney

Member, Trial Bar, USDC Northen District of Illinois

Ladas & Parry LLP

224 South Michigan Avenue

Suite 1600

Chicago, Illinois 60604

312 427-1300

312 408-2532 (direct)

The sender does not provide any tax advice, therefore this cannot be reliance opinion.

This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is

addressed and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from

disclosure under applicable law or may constitute as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient,

you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly

prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, notify us immediately by email or telephone and (i)

destroy this message if a facsimile or (ii) delete this message immediately if this is an electronic communication.

Case: 1:20-cv-05191 Document #: 33-2 Filed: 12/10/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:396
EXHIBIT
      10.3

     

     

    AMENDMENT
      TO

    DISTRIBUTION
      AGREEMENT

    Dated
      February 7, 2002

     

    This
      Amendment No. 1
      is made
      and entered into this 7th
      day of
      February, 2002, between Medi-Hut
      Co., Inc.
      (“Medi”
      or “DISTRIBUTOR”) and Syntho
      Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
      a New
      York corporation (“Syntho” or “MAKER”).

     

    RECITALS

     

    
      	 	
              A.

            	
              Medi
                and Syntho executed and delivered a Distribution Agreement dated
                as of
                November 20, 2001 (the “Agreement”) pursuant to which Medi agreed to
                exclusively distribute Subject Technology (as defined in paragraph
                1.1 of
                the Agreement) and Syntho agreed to manufacture Subject
                Technology.

            


    

     

    
      	 	
              B.

            	
              The
                Parties desire to amend the Agreement in the particulars set forth
                in
                paragraph 4.1 of the Agreement.

            


    

     

    NOW,
      THEREFORE,
      in
      consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, and for other good
      and
      valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency whereof are hereby
      acknowledged, the parties covenant and agree to amend paragraph 4.1 of the
      Agreement as follows:

     

    “4.1
      As
      consideration for the rights conveyed by the MAKER under this Agreement,
      DISTRIBUTOR shall pay to MAKER a fee of One Million Nine Hundred Thousand
      Dollars ($1,900,000).”

     

    The
      terms
      and conditions of this Amendment shall be deemed to modify and supercede the
      Agreement and in the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the terms
      of
      this Amendment and the terms of the agreement, the terms of this Amendment
      shall
      control. Unless otherwise modified, the remaining terms of the Agreement shall
      remain in full force and effect.

     

    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF,
      the
      parties have executed this Amendment on the date set forth above.

     

    
      	 	 	 
	 	MEDI-HUT
              CO., INC.
	 
 	 
 	 
 
	Date: February
              7, 2002	By:  	/s/ Joseph
              A. Sanpietro
	 	
              

            
	 	Joseph
              A. Sanpietro, President


    

    
      
        	 	 	 
	 	 
	 	SYNTHO
                PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
	 
 	 
 	 
 
	Date: February
                7, 2002	By:  	/s/ Muhammed
                Malik
	 	
                

              
	 	Muhammed
                Malik, President
H. R. 4363

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

To facilitate self-help housing homeownership opportunities.

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 ‘‘Helping Hands for Homeownership Act of 2004’’.

SEC. 2. ASSISTANCE FOR SELF-HELP HOUSING PROVIDERS.

Paragraph (1) of section 11(b) of the Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 12805 note) is amended

by striking ‘‘dwelling’’ and inserting ‘‘dwellings’’.

SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF DOUG BEREUTER SECTION 502 SINGLE

FAMILY HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM.

(a) CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—

(1) the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing

Act, enacted November 28, 1990, established the section 502

single family housing loan guarantee program of the Rural

Housing Service of the United States Department of Agriculture;

(2) Congressman Doug Bereuter of Nebraska was the legislative author of the single family housing loan guarantee program;

(3) 316,625 single family loans have been guaranteed under

the program since its implementation in 1991;

(4) the program facilitates home ownership for low- to

moderate-income borrowers in rural areas and nonmetropolitan

communities who are unable to obtain conventional home mortgage financing; and

(5) in 2003, the average income of a borrower with a

loan guaranteed under the section 502 guarantee program was

$34,124.

(b) DESIGNATION.—Subsection (h) of section 502 of the Housing

Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1472(h)) is amended—

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (13) as paragraphs (2) through (14), respectively;

(2) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as so redesignated)

the following new paragraph:

‘‘(1) SHORT TITLE.—This subsection may be cited as the

‘Doug Bereuter Section 502 Single Family Housing Loan Guarantee Act’.’’; and

(3) by striking the subsection designation and heading and

inserting the following:
H. R. 4363—2

‘‘(h) DOUG BEREUTER SECTION 502 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING

LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM.—’’.

(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Subsection (h) of section 502

of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1472(h)), as amended by

section 2 of this Act, is further amended—

(1) in paragraph (5)(A), by striking ‘‘paragraph (12)(A)’’

and inserting ‘‘paragraph (13)’’; and

(2) in paragraph (14)—

(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘GENERAL’’ and

inserting ‘‘GENERAL’’; and

(B) in subparagraph (E)—

(i) by striking ‘‘paragraph (1) and paragraphs (2),

(5), (6)(A), (7), and (9)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph (2)

and paragraphs (3), (6), (7)(A), (8), and (10)’’; and

(ii) by striking ‘‘paragraphs (1) through (12)’’ and

inserting ‘‘paragraphs (2) through (13)’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Largo Vista 8-K Shang Oil 9-9-05 Amend 1 Ex 10-1


     

    


     

     

    Exhibit
      10.1

     

     

    


     

     

    


     

     

    Largo
      Vista Group to Continue to Work with Shanghai Offshore Oil
      Group

     

     

    Friday
      September 9, 3:00 pm ET 

     

    NEWPORT
      BEACH, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 9, 2005--Previously, Largo Vista Group
      Ltd. (OTCBB:LGOV
      -
News)
      announced that it had given Shanghai Offshore Oil Group (HK) Ltd. until Aug.
      31,
      2005, to deliver funds to Largo Vista under their contract of March 18, 2005.
      Although Shanghai Oil has not met this deadline, Largo Vista has decided that
      it
      is in the best interests of the company and its shareholders to continue to
      work
      with Shanghai Oil to meet its obligations under the contract with them. Although
      Shanghai Oil has assured Largo Vista that it will fulfill its obligations under
      the contract, there can be no assurances that it will be able to do so and
      Largo
      Vista will not deliver any of the shares of its common stock under the contract
      until funds have been delivered to Largo Vista by Shanghai Oil. 

     

    The
      forward-looking statements in this release are made pursuant to the safe harbor
      provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Actual
      results may differ materially due to a variety of factors, including without
      limitation the company's ability to produce and market products and/or services
      and other risks detailed from time to time in their company's reports with
      the
      Securities Exchange Commission. 

     

     

    


     

    


    Contact: 

    Largo
      Vista Group

    Investor
      Relations, 949-252-2180

    


    Source:
      Largo Vista Group Ltd.
#### J. B. Kennedy & Wife *v.*J. E. Collins.

Husband and Wife — Landlord and Tenant — Rights of Wife.

Where a husband, without opposition on the part of the wife, transferred the possession of a house and lot to another as tenant, the wife can not assert her rights in a controversy between the landlord and tenant, relating solely to the tenancy 'and in no wise affecting the title to the other part of the property.

Forcible Entry and Detainer — Holding Over by Tenant.

The mere holding over by a tenant 'after the expiration of his term is not a forcible detainer, and a warrant will not lie until there has been a refusal to surrender possession.

APPEAL, FROM MERGER CIRCUIT COURT.

December 24, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

Neither the county judge nor the circuit judge erred in refusing to permit the petition of Mrs. Kennedy to be filed. She could not be made a party to the warrant for the forcible detainer complained of without the consent of Collins.

Upon the trial in the country, and also upon the traverse in the circuit court, the sole question to be determined' by the jury was whether Kennedy, was or was not guilty of the forcible detainer charged. No matter what may be the right of Mrs. Kennedy under the homestead act, if her husband, without legal opposition upon her part, did actually transfer the possession of the house and lot to Collins by becoming his tenant, she can not assert her rights in a controversy between the landlord and tenant relating solely to the tenancy and in no' wise affecting the title of either party to the property. This is not an' action to recover the possession of real property. If the forcible detainer complained of is true, Collins in law now has the possession of the house and lot and his complaint is against a party who holds for him and who has violated the terms and conditions of his holding. We express no opinion as to the rights of Kennedy or his wife under the homestead act, but merely that their rights, whatever they may be, must be asserted in an original action, and can not be enquired into in this proceeding.

*158*T. C. Bell, J. B. & P. B. Thompson, for appellants.*

*C. A. Hardin, for appellee.*

We are of opinion that the first instruction given upon the motion of appéllee is erroneous, and misleading.

The mere holding over by a tenant after the expiration of his term against the will of the landlord is not a forcible detainer. Section 500, Civil Code, defines a forcible detainer to. be “The refusal of a tenant to surrender to his landlord the land or tenements demised, after the expiration of the term' of a tenant at will after the determination of the will of the landlord.” Although the tenant may hold against the will of the landlord, the warrant will not lie until there has been a refusal to surrender the devisor’s premises.

For this error alone the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial, upon principles consistent with this opinion.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
  We consent to the inclusion in this registration statement on Form S-4, to be
filed on or about July 21, 1998, of our report dated February 19, 1998, on our
audit of the financial statements and financial statement schedules of Bayard
Drilling Technologies, Inc. We also consent to the reference to our firm under
the caption "Experts".
 
 /s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
------------------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
July 20, 1998
 
                                        2
#### Supp *vs.*Keusing.

1. A parol lease of premises, from the owner, is a perfectly good defense to any proceedings to eject the lessee summarily, or to an action to recover the possession of the land.

2. Against unlawful violence the tenant has the protection of magistrates and the police, if unable to resist it by himself alone. A court of equity is not a proper tribunal to prevent or redress such wrongs.

(Before Robertson, Ch. J.

at special term, February —, 1866.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                      19,029,898
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                197,027,542
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    662,080,539
<ALLOWANCE>                                  9,279,382
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             890,380,716
<DEPOSITS>                                 719,675,234
<SHORT-TERM>                               103,158,393
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          9,306,949
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,012,921
<OTHER-SE>                                  57,227,219
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             890,380,716
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             24,975,130
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            5,968,501
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            30,943,631
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          15,031,692
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          17,090,092
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       13,853,539
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                1,125,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              29,886
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              7,201,983
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,460,221
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   6,460,221
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,360,220
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .70
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   3.468
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                     4,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             8,145,982
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                     8,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            9,279,382
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         8,487,604
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        791,778


</TABLE>
United States Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Certificate of Metrological Traceability For:

Kansas

2023

This laboratory has demonstrated evidence of an unbroken chain of metrological traceability of its standards to the international 

system of units (SI), maintains a documented calibration program, documented measurement uncertainties, uses documented 

measurement procedures, successfully completed training and proficiency tests, submitted a quality management system, and 

has demonstrated suitable measurement assurance for the Scope listed on this certificate.

The Office of Weights and Measures Program assesses laboratories to NIST Handbook 143 - Program Handbook for State 

Weights and Measures Laboratories and ISO/IEC 17025:2017. 

Scope

Mass Echelon II

30 kg to 1 mg

1000 lb to 0.001 lb

8 oz to 0.03125 oz

Mass Echelon III

500 kg to 1 mg

3000 lb to 0.001 lb

8 oz to 0.03125 oz

Weight Carts 

8000 lb to 3000 lb

Volume Gravimetric, I

5 gal

Volume Transfer, II

1500 gal to 5 gal

Volume Transfer, II LPG

100 gal to 20 gal

_____________________________________

Katrice Lippa, Chief

NIST Office of Weights and Measures

(Rev.: September 2021)

Effective Dates: 2023-02-01 to 2024-02-01
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00356

- CV

Emily A. Rudicel

v.

Emanuel S. Music §

§

§

§ From the 352nd District Court

o f Tarrant County (352

- 262344

- 12 )

January 22, 2015

P er C uriam



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT CO URT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
10318.

#### Byrd *v.*First National Bank of Reynolds.

Decided October 20, 1919.

Foreclosure of mortgage; from Taylor superior court—Judge Howard. November 16, 1919.

*C. W. Foy,*for plaintiff in error.

Stephens, J.

There was evidence to authorize the finding of the jury that the note sued on represented a debt of the defendant and not of her husband, and against the defendant’s plea of suretyship for her husband’s debt.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jerilcins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.*