alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1

 

AMENDMENT TO

UNSECURED PROMISSORY NOTE

 

THIS AMENDMENT TO UNSECURED PROMISSORY NOTE (this “Amendment”), is made as of December 29, 2011 by and between AGRP HOLDING CORP., a Delaware corporation (“AGRP”) and GOOD SAM ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and successor by conversion from Affinity Group, Inc. (“GSE”).

 

W I T N E S S E T H:

 

WHEREAS,  AGRP is indebted to GSE in the original amount of $4,835,000 pursuant to the terms of a promissory note dated December 5, 2001 (the “Note”);

 

WHEREAS, AGRP and GSE are parties to an amended and restated management agreement dated as of December 6, 2001 (the “Management Agreement”);

 

WHEREAS, AGRP has agreed to amend the Management Agreement to provide that the Management Fee not be reduced as the result of any increase in debt service on AGRP’s indebtedness (the “Management Agreement Amendment”);

 

WHEREAS, GSE is a party to an Indenture with respect to GSE’s 11.50% Senior Secured Notes Due 2016 (the “Bonds”);

 

WHEREAS, the Note matures on December 31, 2011 and AGRP is desirous of extending all payments of principal and interest on the Note until the maturity of the Bonds, whether by acceleration or otherwise, in consideration, inter alia, of the Management Agreement Amendment; and

 

WHEREAS, GSE has agreed to amend the Note in consideration of the Management Agreement Amendment.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the agreements set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged by the parties hereto, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows:

 

1.            The parties hereto agree that, notwithstanding the terms of the Note to the contrary, all payments of principal and interest on the Note are hereby extended until the maturity of the Bonds, whether by acceleration or otherwise, in consideration, inter alia, of the Management Agreement Amendment.

 

2.             Except as herein specifically amended and modified, the Note shall remain in full force and effect. This Amendment constitutes the entire agreement between the parties relative to the subject matter hereof, and may not be modified, supplemented, discharged or rescinded except by an instrument in writing executed by both parties to this Amendment.

 

1











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the day and year first above written in their respective names by their duly authorized officers.

 

	
 
    	
AGRP HOLDING CORP.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
 
    	
/s/ Brent Moody
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Its:
    	
Vice President
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
GOOD SAM ENTERPRISES, LCC
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
 
    	
/s/ Marcus Lemonis
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Its:
    	
Chief Executive Officer
    


 

2
spectralcap10k20101231ex10-1.htm










Amendment to the Definitive Financing Agreement







This Amendment to the Definitive Financing Agreement ("Amendment") is entered into this 23rd of December, 2010 by and between Gamma Investment Holdings Ltd ("Gamma") and Spectral Capital Corporation ("Spectral") concerning a change to that Definitive Financing Agreement dated September 20, 2010 between the parties ("DFA").


 


Recitals


 


Gamma holds a 52% undivided interest in each of two separate mineral properties located in Russia in the Chita Region, which are identified as K1 and K2, respectively (together the "Mineral Properties") in the DFA.  The DFA conveys a 47%  interest to Spectral.  The purpose of this Amendment is to grant Spectral an additional 5% interest in K1 and K2, bringing Spectral's interest to 52%.


 


Recitals.  The recitals contained above are binding and material parts of this Amendment with full force and effect.


 



	
1.  

	
Conveyance and Representation.  Gamma represents that it is the owner of a 52% undivided mineral interest in K1 and K2.  By the DFA, Gamma conveyed a 47% interest in K1 and K2 to Spectral, leaving Gamma with a 5% interest.  Gamma now hereby conveys this 5% interest to Spectral in exchange for the additional consideration contained in this section.  Spectral agrees, in consideration for the conveyance of the 5% interest made herein, to amend  Section 4 of the DFA to increase Spectral's total financing commitment to from $35,000,000 to $40,000,000 over a twenty four month period.  This additional $5,000,000 shall be added to the twenty four month milestone contained in Section 4(c) of the DFA.







 



	
2.  

	
Misc.  This Amendment shall be governed by the laws of the State of Nevada and the federal laws of the United States applicable therein, and the parties hereby irrevocably submit themselves  to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of such state.  This Amendment may be executed (by original or facsimile transmission) in several counterparts, each of which so executed shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.  In the case of a conflict between the DFA and this Amendment, this Amendment shall govern.







 







 


Accepted and Agreed to as of the date first written above by:


 







 


GAMMA INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LTD.


 


X_____/s/ Galina Klochkova ________


 


Galina Klochkova


Managing Director


Gamma Investment Holdings Ltd.







SPECTRAL CAPITAL CORPORATION







X____/s/ Jenifer Osterwalder________







Jenifer Osterwalder


President and CEO


Spectral Capital Corporation
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2848 

To provide for certain requirements of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

relating to funeral and memorial services for deceased veterans, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 7, 2011 

Mr. POE of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide for certain requirements of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs relating to funeral and memorial services 

for deceased veterans, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans’ Religious 

5 Freedom Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2848 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT OF SECRETARY OF VETERANS AF2 FAIRS RELATING TO FUNERAL AND MEMO3 RIAL SERVICES FOR DECEASED VETERANS. 

4 (a) PROVISION OF OPTIONS TO FAMILY MEMBERS OF

5 DECEASED.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall en6 sure that the family members of each veteran who is bur7 ied in a national cemetery or eligible for burial benefits 

8 under chapter 23 of title 38, United States Code, are in9 formed of all options available for the funeral or memorial 

10 service for the veteran. 

11 (b) CEMETERY DIRECTOR REQUIREMENT.— 

12 (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided by para13 graph (2), by not later than 90 days after the date 

14 of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Vet15 erans Affairs shall ensure that the director of each 

16 national cemetery is a qualified veteran. 

17 (2) EXCEPTION.—If the Secretary determines 

18 that the Secretary is unable to hire a qualified vet19 eran to be the director of a national cemetery, the 

20 Secretary shall— 

21 (A) notify the Committees on Veterans’ Af22 fairs of the Senate and House of Representa23 tives of such determination; and 

24 (B) after making such notification, hire a 

25 qualified non-veteran individual to act as in26 terim director of the national cemetery until the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2848 IH

1 date on which the Secretary is able to hire a 

2 qualified veteran for such position. 

3 (c) RELIGIOUS SPEECH AT VETERAN FUNERALS.— 

4 The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may not— 

5 (1) prescribe regulations to censor or otherwise 

6 limit the type of religious speech that may be per7 formed by a member of a veterans service organiza8 tion at the funeral or memorial service of a veteran; 

9 or 

10 (2) censor or otherwise limit the type of reli11 gious speech of private speakers who have been in12 vited to speak on property of the Department of 

13 Veterans Affairs. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-26-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-25-2000
<CASH>                                           2,305
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   79,542
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,256
<INVENTORY>                                     20,151
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               125,859
<PP&E>                                          74,417
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 416,046
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           72,757
<BONDS>                                        333,101
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              320
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (10,667)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   416,046
<SALES>                                        144,636
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               144,636
<CGS>                                           83,843
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   83,843
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   650
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,399
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,258)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (8,212)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,046)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,046)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0380

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

SERENITY ALANA MANN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including February 26, 2024, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 19 2024

01/19/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0380
EXHIBIT 99.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer
pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)



I, Shelby W. Bonnie, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of CNET Networks, Inc. (CNET);

2.	Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this quarterly report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results
of operations and cash flows of CNET as of and for the periods presented in this quarterly
report;

4.	CNET's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for CNET and
have:

a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information
related to CNET, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of CNET's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date
within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and

c)	Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.

5.	CNET's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation,
to CNET's auditors and the audit committee of CNET's board of directors:

a)	all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could
adversely affect CNET's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
identified for CNET's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)	any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in CNET's internal controls; and

6.	CNET's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether
there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly
affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any
corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

May 5, 2003





/s/Shelby W. Bonnie

Shelby W. Bonnie
Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT 13.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F, as amended by thisAmendment No. 1 on Form 20-F/A, of Luxottica Group S.p.A. (the “Company”) forthe fiscal year ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Enrico Cavatorta,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that:

1.             The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2.             The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
|        | By:    | /s/ ENRICO CAVATORTA    |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   | Enrico Cavatorta        |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

Dated:  August 2, 2006

This writtenstatement accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
##### 



Exhibit 24

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of the undersigned directors
and/or officers of TEXAS EASTERN PRODUCTS PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC (the
Company), a Delaware limited liability company, acting in its capacity as
general partner of TEPPCO Partners, L.P., and TE Products Pipeline Company,
Limited Partnership, each a Delaware limited partnership (collectively,
Partnership), does hereby appoint CHARLES H. LEONARD, BARRY R. PEARL, and
JAMES C. RUTH, and each of them, his true and lawful attorney and agent to do
any and all acts and things, and execute any and all instruments which, with
the advice and consent of Counsel, said attorney and agent may deem necessary
or advisable to enable the Company and Partnership to comply with the
Securities Act of 1934, as amended, and any rules, regulations, and
requirements thereof, to sign his name as a director and/or officer of the
Company to the Form 10-K Report for TEPPCO Partners, L.P. and for TE Products
Pipeline Company, Limited Partnership, each for the year ended December 31,
2003, and to any instrument or document filed as a part of, or in accordance
with, each said Form 10-K or amendment thereto; and the undersigned do hereby
ratify and confirm all that said attorney and agent shall do or cause to be
done by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have subscribed these presents this
23rd day of February, 2004.

| |  |                       |  |                          
| |  | --------------------- |  | -------------------------
| |  | /s/ MARK A. BORER     |  | /s/ MICHAEL J. BRADLEY   
| |  |                       |  |                          
| |  | Mark A. Borer         |  | Michael J. Bradley       
| |  | Director              |  | Director                 
| |  |                       |  |                          
| |  | /s/ MILTON CARROLL    |  | /s/ DERRILL CODY         
| |  |                       |  |                          
| |  | Milton Carroll        |  | Derrill Cody             
| |  | Director              |  | Director                 
| |  |                       |  |                          
| |  | /s/ JOHN P. DESBARRES |  | /s/ WILLIAM H. EASTER III
| |  |                       |  |                          
| |  | John P. DesBarres     |  | William H. Easter III    
| |  | Director              |  | Director                 
| |  |                       |  |                          
| |  | /s/ JIM W. MOGG       |  | /s/ BARRY R. PEARL       
| |  |                       |  |                          
| |  | Jim W. Mogg           |  | Barry R. Pearl           
| |  | Chairman              |  | Director                 
| |  |                       |  |                          
| |  | /s/ R. A. WALKER      |  | /s/ CHARLES H. LEONARD   
| |  |                       |  |                          
| |  | R. A. Walker          |  | Charles H. Leonard       
| |  | Director              |  | Senior Vice President and
| |  |                       |  | Chief Financial Officer
In the Supreme Court of Georgia

 Decided: January 19, 2016

S15A1647. SMITH v. THE STATE.

HUNSTEIN, Justice.

Appellant Tiara Smith appeals from the trial court’s denial of what she

styled as an “Extraordinary Motion for New Trial.” We affirm.

In September 2007, Smith pled guilty to two counts of felony murder, two

counts of serious injury by vehicle, feticide, and felony fleeing and attempting

to elude; she was sentenced to life imprisonment. In December 2012, Smith

filed an extraordinarymotion for new trial asserting that she had discovered new

evidence establishing that she is not guilty of felony murder. The trial court

denied the motion. On appeal, Smith continues to argue that she has newly

discovered evidence that undermines her felony murder conviction and that the

trial court erroneously denied her motion. 

As the trial court correctly recognized, an extraordinary motion for new

trial is not a remedy available to Smith because she pled guilty. See Davis v.

State, 274 Ga. 865, 866 (561 SE2d 119) (2002) (“‘One who has entered a plea
of guilty cannot move for a new trial, as there was no trial.’”). Construing

Smith’s pleading as a motion to withdraw her guilty plea or a motion in arrest

of judgment is equally ineffectual because “[b]oth sorts of motions must be filed

within the same term of court at which the guilty plea or judgment being

challenged was entered.” Hagan v. State, 290 Ga. 353, 353 (720 SE2d 645)

(2012). Indeed, “‘after the expiration of the term and of the time for filing an

appeal from the conviction, the only remedy available to the defendant for

withdrawing a plea is through habeas corpus proceedings.’” Harris v. State, 278

Ga. 805, 806 (2) (606 SE2d 248) (2004). Smith’s motion, however, cannot be

construed as a habeas corpus petition; not only was the motion filed outside the

four-year limitations period imposed by OCGA § 9-14-42 (c), but it was also

filed in the county in which Smith was convicted rather than the county in which

she is incarcerated. See OCGA § 9-14-43. See also Thomas v. State, 291 Ga.

18 (727 SE2d 123) (2012). Accordingly, irrespective of how Smith’s motion

is construed, it is improper and untimely, and she is not entitled to relief.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

2
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted May 11, 2009

Decided June 11, 2009

Before

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 08

‐ 2026

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellee

,

v.

ANTONIO ABARCA,

Defendant

‐ Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 06 CR 575

‐ 1

Joan Humphrey Lefkow,

Judge

.

O R D E R

Antonio Abarca pleaded guilty to robbing three banks, see 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), and

was sentenced to 92 months’ imprisonment. Abarca appeals, but his appointed counsel has

moved to withdraw because she cannot identify any nonfrivolous argument to pursue. See

Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Abarca has not accepted our invitation to comment

on counsel’s motion. See C IR

. R. 51(b). We confine our review to the potential issues

outlined in counsel’s facially adequate brief. See United States v. Schuh

, 289 F.3d 968, 973

‐ 74

(7th Cir. 2002). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 08

‐ 2026 Page 2

Counsel informs us that Abarca does not wish to challenge his guilty plea, so she

properly refrains from discussing possible arguments about the voluntariness of the plea or

the adequacy of the plea colloquy. See United States v. Knox

, 287 F.3d 667, 671

‐ 72 (7th Cir.

2002).

One possible argument evaluated by counsel is whether the district court erred by

failing to rule on Abarca’s motion to suppress the identity of a bank teller. But before the

court could rule on the motion to suppress, Abarca pleaded guilty. And by entering an

unconditional guilty plea, Abarca waived all non

‐ jurisdictional errors that might have

occurred prior to the plea. See United States v. Rogers

, 387 F.3d 925, 934 (7th Cir. 2004);

United States v. Elizalde

‐ Adame

, 262 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2001).

The only other argument counsel considers is whether Abarca could argue that a 92

‐

month sentence is unreasonable. Here, because the district court sentenced Abarca to the

bottom of the properly calculated guidelines range of 92 to 115 months, his sentence would

be presumptively reasonable. See Rita v. United States

, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007) ; United

States v. Mykytiuk

, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). The sentencing transcript shows that the

district court adequately considered all of the § 3553(a) factors, including the seriousness of

the offenses, Abarca’s characteristics and personal history, and the need to protect the

public. See United States v. Laufle

, 433 F.3d 981, 987 (7th Cir. 2006). We agree with counsel

that there are no nonfrivolous arguments to rebut the presumption of reasonableness for

this sentence, and thus any potential challenge to his sentence would be frivolous.

Accordingly, we G RANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and D ISMISS the appeal.