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

                       SECOND AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE
                                (LINE OF CREDIT)


     WHEREAS,  Obsidian Enterprises,  Inc., a Delaware corporation,  executed as
"Maker",  a  certain  Promissory  Note  dated  January  9, 2002 in favor of Fair
Holdings, Inc, an Ohio corporation,  (the "Note"), as "Lender", in the principal
amount of Three Million and 00/100 Dollars with a Final Maturity Date of January
9, 2005 which was amended by that certain  First  Amendment To  Promissory  Note
dated January 2, 2003.

     WHEREAS, Obsidian Enterprises,  Inc. and Fair Holdings, Inc. have agreed to
a second amendment to the Note so that the principal amount of the Note shall be
increased to the sum of Eight Million and 00/100 Dollars ($8,000,000.00).

     NOW  THEREFORE,  inconsideration  of the  recitals  set forth above and the
covenants,   conditions  and  agreements   contained  herein,  the  receipt  and
sufficiency of which are hereby  acknowledged,  the Parties consent and agree as
follows:

     1. The principal  balance of the Note is hereby  increased to Eight Million
and 00/100  Dollars  ($8,000,000.00).  Except for the amendment to the principal
balance,  all other terms and conditions of the Note and the First  Amendment To
the Promissory Note remain in full force and effect as if fully stated herein.

     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties  have caused  this  Second  Amendment  to
Promissory Note to be executed this 1st day of April, 2003.


Obsidian Enterprises, Inc.                  Fair Holdings, Inc.


By: /s/ Timothy S. Durham                    By: /s/ Timothy S. Durham
   --------------------------                   ---------------------------
   Timothy S. Durham, Chairman                  Timothy S. Durham, Chairman
FMCS | 2100 K St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20427 | 202-606-8100 | www.fmcs.gov 

NEWS RELEASE 

Wednesday, May 4, 2016 Contact: Linda Gray-Broughton 

For Immediate Release Grants Program Specialist 

Website: www.fmcs.gov Phone: (202) 606-8181 

Deadline Approaching for FMCS Labor-Management Grants 

Applications Due May 31, 2016 

WASHINGTON, DC – The deadline to apply for a labor-management grant from the 

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) is now less than a month away! Don’t miss 

this chance to launch an innovative program with FMCS seed money while funds are available!

With the challenges of the 21st century workplace upon us, FMCS is looking for 

proposals that address the transitioning workplace, hiring and retaining new generations of 

workers, and rapidly advancing technology-based work structures. 

In explaining the special emphasis on such proposals, FMCS Director Allison Beck said, 

“Dramatic shifts in labor market trends, combined with significant labor-management reform 

activity occurring across many industries and at the city, state, and regional level, require 

broad, creative and collaborative approaches to workplace problems.” 

FMCS grants will be awarded in amounts from $50,000 to $400,000, which is a 

departure from the previous funding cap of $125,000 for geographic or industry-wide 

committees. Parties with well-qualified proposals should not assume that there will be a 

significantly larger funding pool next year! Any future increase in grant funding is entirely 

dependent on the FY 2017 Congressional appropriations process. 

Detailed information and application training videos are available at this link. For 

additional information, contact the FMCS Grants Office at 202-606-8181. 

### 

The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, created in 1947, is an independent U.S. 

government agency whose mission is to preserve and promote labor-management peace and 

cooperation. Headquartered in Washington, DC, with 10 regional offices and more than 60 field 

offices, the agency provides mediation and conflict resolution services to industry, government 

agencies and communities.
**Exhibit3.1**

**Articlesof Amendment ofGaiam, Inc.**

Section Fof Article IV of the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of thecorporation is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:

“**F.           Quorum and VotingRequirements.**  At all meetingsof the shareholders, the holders of a majority of the votes eligible to be castshall constitute a quorum.  If a quorumis present, the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes eligible to be caston the subject matter shall be the act of the shareholders unless the vote of agreater number or voting by groups is required by the Colorado BusinessCorporation Act or these Articles.  Anyaction required or permitted by Articles 101 to 117 of the Colorado BusinessCorporation Act to be taken at a shareholders’ meeting may be taken without ameeting if shareholders holding shares having not less than the minimum numberof votes that would be necessary to authorize or take such action at a meetingat which all of the shares entitled to vote thereon were present and votedconsent to such action in writing.”

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000             MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       6,828,700               1,609,304
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,234,495              20,293,191
<ALLOWANCES>                                   175,000                 175,000
<INVENTORY>                                 18,213,249              18,876,141
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            40,272,954              40,718,008
<PP&E>                                      15,619,721              13,794,913
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,026,569               4,492,022
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              53,657,977              50,239,475
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,621,123              10,713,795
<BONDS>                                    142,686,811               1,094,882
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                     2,608,000               1,400,000
<OTHER-SE>                               (110,257,957)              37,030,798
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                53,657,977              50,239,475
<SALES>                                     25,431,363              34,811,043
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            25,431,363              34,811,043
<CGS>                                       16,632,751              21,656,628
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,413,972              24,058,080
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (42,261)                (12,396)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,921,103                  43,090
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,138,549              10,722,269
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,138,549              10,722,269
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,138,549              10,722,269
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.07                    0.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07                    0.36


</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Commissioners Maffei & Sola Travel to Gulf of Mexico Ports","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"N3pgurS9pY\"><a href=\"\/maffei-sola-travel-gulf-mexico-ports\/\">Commissioners Maffei & Sola Travel to Gulf of Mexico Ports<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/maffei-sola-travel-gulf-mexico-ports\/embed\/#?secret=N3pgurS9pY\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commissioners Maffei & Sola Travel to Gulf of Mexico Ports” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"N3pgurS9pY\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
Exhibit 99.2

     In connection with the Annual Report of Global Diversified
Industries (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending
July 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Adam Debard, Treasurer,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
     the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The Information contained in the Report fairly
     represents, in all material aspects, the financial
     condition and result of operations on the Company.


By: /s/Adam Debard
Adam Debard, Treasurer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129782 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 129782 

 COA: 261081 

Wayne CC: 00-013607

CHRISTOPHER DELGADO,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 23, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

p1219 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 27, 2005 

Clerk
----

| Dated:                February 12, 2008 | /s/                Matthew Boyle       |
|-----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                                    | Matthew                Boyle           |
|                                    | Chief                Executive Officer |
|                                    |                                   |
|                                    |                                   |
|                                    |                                   |
| Dated:                February 12, 2008 | /s/                Paul N. Farquhar    |
|                                    | Paul                N. Farquhar        |
|                                    | Chief                Financial Officer |

----
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 31 

To amend title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act to provide for 

a definition of short-term limited duration insurance, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2021 

Mr. BIGGS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act 

to provide for a definition of short-term limited duration 

insurance, 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 ‘‘Health Coverage 

5 Choice Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SHORT-TERM LIMITED DURATION 

7 INSURANCE. 

8 Section 2791(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 

9 U.S.C. 300gg–91(b)) is amended by adding at the end the 

10 following new paragraph: 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 31 IH

1 ‘‘(6) SHORT-TERM LIMITED DURATION INSUR2 ANCE.—The term ‘short-term limited duration insur3 ance’ means health insurance coverage provided 

4 under a contract with a health insurance issuer 

5 that— 

6 ‘‘(A) has an expiration date specified in 

7 the contract that is less than 12 months after 

8 the original effective date of the contract; and 

9 ‘‘(B) has a duration of not more than 3 

10 years (taking into account renewals or exten11 sions) after the original effective date of the 

12 contract.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                           ASSIGNABLE PROMISSORY NOTE

         FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Southridge Group, a Nevada LLC (the "Obligor"),
promises to pay to REPRO-MED SYSTEMS, INC. at its offices at 24 Carpenter Road,
Chester, New York 10918 (or such other address as the holder may notify the
Obligor) the sum of one hundred eighty-three thousand five hundred seventy-nine
($183,579) dollars plus interest at six and one-half (6.5%) percent per annum
payable together with the principal which shall become due on November 15, 2002.

         This Note is assignable. If an Event of Default occurs under this note,
then in addition to all other remedies available to Seller, Obligor agrees to
pay, upon demand, all reasonable legal fees and disbursements incurred by Seller
through the appellate level in enforcing any of Seller's rights hereunder.

         Installments of principal due under this Note may be prepaid by Obligor
in whole or in part at any time or times and without penalty, but with interest
to the date of such prepayment.




                              SOUTHRIDGE GROUP, LLC


                              By: /s/ Yale Farar
                                 -------------------------------------------

                                   Yale Farar
                                 -------------------------------------------
                                    Name

                                   Manager
                                 -------------------------------------------
                                    Title
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6889** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. BRIAN LEE FOSTER , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:08

- cr - 00087

- FL

- 1; 5:11

- cv - 00439

- FL )

Submitted : October 22, 2013 Decided: October 25 , 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Brian Lee Foster, Appellant Pro Se. Eric David Goulian, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Stephen Aubrey West, Assistant United States Att orney s , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Brian Lee Foster seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying rel ief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substa ntial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s a ssessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Foster has not made th e requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability , deny Foster’s motion to stay appellate proceedings as moot, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Benjamin F. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 13692.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued May 9, 1957.

Decided May 29, 1957.

*782Mr. John A. Shorter, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Roy M. Ellis, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Alfred Burka, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., Lewis Carroll and Joseph A. Low-ther, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before WASHINGTON, DANAHER and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant (appellant) was on trial for violations of § 3 and § 1711 of Title 18 U.S.C. After completion of the testimony, counsel for defendant requested the trial court to charge the jury to the effect that, if the Government failed to prove each element of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury should find the defendant not guilty. The court failed or refused so to charge. Nor did its instructions, as a whole, contain the substance of the request.

The giving of such a charge should be uniform practice. We think that, certainly in every case where such a charge is requested, failure so to charge, directly or in substance, is reversible error. Cf. Williams v. United States, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 299, 131 F.2d 21; McAffee v. United States, 70 App.D.C. 142, 105 F.2d 21.

Reversed.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2966 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make employers of spouses 

of military personnel eligible for the work opportunity credit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 4, 2021 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 

employers of spouses of military personnel eligible for 

the work opportunity credit. 

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 ‘‘Military Spouses Em5 ployment Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF SPOUSES OF MILITARY PERSONNEL 

7 FOR THE WORK OPPORTUNITY CREDIT. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 51(d) of 

9 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

10 ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph (I), by striking the period 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2966 IH

1 at the end of subparagraph (J) and inserting ‘‘, or’’, and 

2 by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: 

3 ‘‘(K) a qualified military spouse.’’. 

4 (b) QUALIFIED MILITARY SPOUSE.—Subsection (d) 

5 of section 51 of such Code is amended by redesignating 

6 paragraphs (12) through (15) as paragraphs (13) through 

7 (16), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph (9) the 

8 following new paragraph: 

9 ‘‘(11) QUALIFIED MILITARY SPOUSE.—The 

10 term ‘qualified military spouse’ means any individual 

11 who is certified by the designated local agency as 

12 being a spouse (determined as of the hiring date) of 

13 a member of the Armed Forces of the United States 

14 who is serving on a period of extended active duty 

15 which includes the hiring date. For purposes of the 

16 preceding sentence, the term ‘extended active duty’ 

17 means any period of active duty pursuant to a call 

18 or order to such duty for a period in excess of 90 

19 days or for an indefinite period.’’. 

20 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made this 

21 section shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after the 

22 date of the enactment of this Act to individuals who begin 

23 work for the employer after such date. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
{"agency":"FMCS","generated":"2017-02-10 14:03:12","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"}],"value":"2017"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q1"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"3"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"2"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["FMCS"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["19"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["7"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["2"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2017","quarter":"Q1"}