alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 2.8





AMENDMENT TO
PROMISSORY NOTE





ThisAMENDMENT (the Amendment) to the Promissory Note (as defined below)
is made and entered into as of March 18, 2002, by and between Frederick R. Fromm and Oplink Communications, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company).





Recitals





WHEREAS, the Company previously made a loan to Mr. Fromm as evidenced by the promissory note dated August 16, 2000 in the aggregate principal amount of $400,000 (the Promissory Note); and





WHEREAS, the Company and Mr. Fromm now desire to amend the terms of the Promissory Note as set forth below.





Agreement





NOW, THEREFORE,
the parties hereto mutually agree that all consents or conditions required to be obtained or satisfied under the Promissory Note in connection with this Amendment are hereby given and that the Promissory Note is amended as follows:





1.    MODIFICATIONS.    Section 1 of the Promissory Note is hereby amended to read in its
entirety as follows:





1.    Principal Repayment.  The outstanding
principal amount and any accrued and unpaid interest hereunder shall be due and payable in one lump sum on June 30, 2007 (the Maturity Date); provided, however, the undersigned shall apply the proceeds realized from any sale of
common stock of the Company (or successor corporation) held by the undersigned, net of the exercise price and tax liability with respect to such sale, to prepay or repay (as the case may be) the principal and unpaid interest hereunder until this
Note is settled in full.





2.    General.





2.1    Continuing Effect; No Waiver.  All other provisions of the Promissory Note remain in full force and effect and are unmodified by this
Amendment. The parties hereby acknowledge that nothing in this Amendment shall be construed as a waiver on behalf of the Company or Mr. Fromm of any other rights or obligations under the Promissory Note.





2.2    Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original but all of which shall be considered one and the same instrument.





2.3    Entire
Agreement.  This Amendment and the Promissory Note (as amended herein) constitute the full and entire understanding and agreement between the parties with regard to the subjects hereof and no party shall be liable or bound to any other
in any




1 of 3




---

manner by any representations, warranties, covenants and agreements except as specifically set forth herein and therein.





2.4    Governing Law.This Note shall be governed by, and construed, enforced and interpreted in accordance with, the laws of the State of
California, excluding conflict of laws principles that would cause the application of laws of any other jurisdiction.





[The remainder of
this page has been intentionally left blank.]




2 of 3




---




IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have
executed this A MENDMENT as of the date set forth in the first paragraph hereof.





/s/    FREDERICK R. FROMMFrederick R. Fromm





Oplink Communications, Inc.Signature:

/s/    BRUCE D. HORNPrint Name:

Bruce D. HornTitle:

CFO




3 of 3





[Amendment to Promissory
Note Signature Page]
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 19, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, June 19, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17I0243. KEYLA CONNIE v. MELISSA TURNER et al.. Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2016RCCV00269
### SUBCHAPTER V—PENAL PROVISIONS; FORFEITURES
### The Morro do Ferro thorium and rare-earth ore deposit, Pocos de Caldas district, Brazil

By: Helmuth Wedow Jr.

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1185D

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Exhibit 99.2







Independent Accountant’s Report








Synthetic Fixed-Income Securities, Inc. (as Depositor)


One Wachovia Center


301 South College Street, DC-7


Charlotte, NC 28288





U.S. Bank Trust National Association (as Trustee)


Corporate Trust Department


100 Wall Street


New York, NY 10005








Re:
STRATSTrust For J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. Securities, Series 2004-9 (the “Trust”)




Ladies and Gentlemen:





We have examined assertions of Synthetic Fixed-Income Securities, Inc. (the “Depositor”) and U.S. Bank National Association, (the “Trustee” and Together with the Depositor, the “Management”) that the Depositor and the Trustee have complied, in all material respects, with the provisions of the Base Trust Agreement dated as of September 26, 2003, as supplemented by a series supplement dated as of July 15, 2004 (together, the “Trust Agreement”), in respect of the STRATS Trust For J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. Securities, Series 2004-9 (the “Trust”), during the period covered by the annual report on Form 10-K filed by the Depositor on behalf of the Trust for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the “Annual Report”).  Management is responsible for compliance with the Trust Agreement. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on Management’s assertions based on our examination.





Our examination was made in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Depositor’s and the Trustee’s compliance with the Trust Agreement and performing such other procedures as considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.





In our opinion, the Depositor and the Trustee have complied, in all material respects, with the Trust Agreement during the period covered by the Annual Report and Management’s assertions with respect to such compliance are fairly stated, in all material respects, for the year ended December 31, 2009.








/s/ Aston Bell, CPA





New York, New York


March 22, 2010
GUIF OF MEKICO
BATHYMETRIC MAP MITCHELL DOME

Us Oinatiment OF COwmeRCE MITCHELL DOME
WATIONAL OCEANIC AND AMWOBPMRC AGRUNISTRATION INZ85088W)

WaTOHaL OCLAM HRVICE
BATHYMETRIC MAP LMId)

ATOR METaTE COMPEIUR MTTRAGS IEC MERE 11D 206 AAETIEE DUEFIYG
THENCE 20 ETERS TO saaemeea DEPTH

DARUe evans HOWE Kee WATE
================================================================================

                    EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certifications


The undersigned officer certifies that this report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that
the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NexxNow, Inc.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to NexxNow, Inc. and will be retained by NexxNow, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

December 14, 2009

                                     /s/ Gary Berthold
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Gary Berthold, Chief Executive Officer


                                     /s/ Jan Kaplan
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Jan Kaplan, Chief Financial Officer





================================================================================
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6004

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

TERRICIOUS BURNELL BROOKS, a/k/a Turkey, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Louise W. 

Flanagan, District Judge. (2:10-cr-00021-FL-1; 2:13-cv-00040-

FL) 

Submitted: May 31, 2016 Decided: June 14, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Terricious Burnell Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Terricious Burnell Brooks seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order adopting in part the recommendation of the 

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

(2012) 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) (2012). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2012). 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 

assessment 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 

Brooks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Exhibit 8.1
 Subsidiaries
of The Registrant
 Significant wholly-owned subsidiaries
 Name of Subsidiary
    
    Jurisdiction of IncorporationGameNow.net (Hong Kong) Limited
    
    Hong KongChina The9 Interactive Limited
    
    Hong Kong9Dream Limited
    
    Hong KongChina Crown Technology Limited
    
    Hong KongThe9 Development Center Limited
    
    Hong KongAsian Way Development Limited
    
    Hong KongNew Star International Development Limited
    
    Hong KongTDC (Asia) Limited
    
    British Virgin IslandsThe9 Singapore Pte. Ltd.
    
    SingaporeThe9 Interactive, Inc.
    
    Delaware, USAThe9 Korea Co., Ltd.
    
    KoreaRed5 Korea, LLC
    
    KoreaThe9 Computer Technology Consulting (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
    
    ChinaChina The9 Interactive (Shanghai) Limited
    
    ChinaChina The9 Interactive (Beijing) Limited
    
    ChinaJiu Jing Era Information Technology (Beijing) Limited
    
    ChinaJiu Tuo (Shanghai) Information Technology Limited
    
    China
 Significant majority-owned subsidiaries
 Name of Subsidiary
    
    Jurisdiction of IncorporationRed 5 Studios, Inc.
    
    Delaware, USA
 Significant consolidated affiliated entities
 Name of Subsidiary
    
    Jurisdiction of IncorporationShanghai Huopu Cloud Computing Terminal Technology Co., Ltd.
    
    ChinaShanghai The9 Information Technology Co., Ltd.
    
    ChinaShanghai Jiucheng Advertisement Co., Ltd.
    
    ChinaHangzhou Fire Rain Network Technology Co., Ltd.
    
    ChinaShenzhen Wanyouyinli Technology Co., Ltd.
    
    China
|                                          |
|------------------------------------------|
|                                          |  |  |  |  |
|                                     |   |   |   |   |
| Delaware                                 |   | 1-9397 |   | 76-0207995 |
| (State of Incorporation)                 |   | (Commission File No.) |   | (I.R.S. EmployerIdentification No.) |
|                                     |   |
| 2929 Allen Parkway, Houston, Texas       |   | 77019 |
| (Address of Principal Executive Offices) |   | (Zip Code) |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
| ¨ | Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
| ¨ | Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
| ¨ | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
| ¨ | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) |

----

----

|       |
|-------|
|       |  |
| 3.1 * | Bylaws dated October 24, 2013 |

----

|                         |
|-------------------------|
|                         |  |  |  |  |
|                    |   |   |   |   |
|                    |   | BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED |
|                    |   |   |
| Dated: October 24, 2013 |   | By: |   | /s/ Lee Whitley |
|                    |   |   |   | Lee WhitleyCorporate Secretary and Senior Corporate Counsel |

----

|             |
|-------------|
|             |  |
|        |   |
| Exhibit No. | Description |
| 3.1 *       | Bylaws dated October 24, 2013 |
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
Youhave reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection(FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in theFDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suiteof cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications (CGP).
**Title:****Estimating loss-of-coolant accident(LOCA) frequencies through the elicitation process
 
Vol. 1| Vol. 2 - Appendices
 
SuDoc Number:Y 3.N 88:10/1829/V.1-2
Item Number1051-H-48 (online):
CGP System Number:001011148
 
 
 
** 
**Permanent Public Access
** 
Title 44 of  the United States Code (44 U.S.C. Section 1911) stipulates that public access  to official Government information products disseminated through the Federal  Depository Library Program (FDLP) must be maintained permanently in regional  depository libraries and by depository libraries not served by a regional  library. Since online products are not physically distributed to depository  libraries for retention, GPO has assumed responsibility for the provision of  permanent access to Government information products residing on FDsys  servers.
GPO's  permanent public access commitment is also met by bringing  agency-disseminated Internet resources under the purview of GPO and  incorporating them into a digital archive. GPO captures copies of agency  electronic information products, and creates PURLs so that users will be  automatically redirected to the archived products if the information is no  longer accessible on the agency Web site. Please refer to the report Managing  the FDLP Electronic Collection: A Policy and Planning Document for more  information.
 
August 16, 2017********
#### In the Matter of Jonathan D. Jewish Child Care Association, *948Appellant; Danielle F. D., Respondent.

Order, Family Court, New York County, entered September 16, 1977, dismissing the petition for a declaration of permanent neglect and directing that the child be returned to the natural mother at the end of the school year in June of 1978, unanimously modified, on the law, without costs or disbursements, to the extent of deleting that portion of the order which directed the return of the child to the mother, and the matter remitted to the Family Court for a dispositional hearing on the issue of the best interest of the child, and except, as thus modified, affirmed. Jonathan D. was born in 1968 to Danielle and Joseph D. In 1971 Danielle placed Jonathan with the Jewish Child Care Association because of a marital crisis. The Jewish Child Care Association placed Jonathan with a foster family with whom he has resided for six and one-half years. The parents have since divorced, and in December, 1976 the Jewish Child Care Association filed a petition to declare that Jonathan was permanently neglected. After a fact-finding hearing held in April, 1977, Family Court found that there was no permanent neglect or abandonment of the child and ordered that custody of Jonathan revert to the natural mother at the end of the school year in June, 1978. We agree that permanent neglect has not been established, but find that the Family Court erred in ordering the child returned to the natural mother without inquiry into the best interest of the child relative to custodial disposition. The petition was brought solely to terminate parental rights. In light of the fact that Jonathan has been in the custody of foster parents for a prolonged period of time, there should have been inquiry into and a determination of the best interest of the child prior to a direction that he be returned to the natural mother. (See *Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys,*40 NY2d 543, 550.) The court should have examined into the qualifications and background of the mother. Essential to any determination as to the child’s best interest is a consideration of the Law Guardian’s report. The court refused an offer by the guardian to submit such a report at the hearing. Accordingly, the matter is remanded for a dispositional hearing on the issue of the child’s best interests. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Birns, Silverman, Fein and Sullivan, JJ.
### §302. Repealed. June 5, 1936, ch. 511, §1, 49 Stat. 1475

Section, act June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title III, §302, 48 Stat. 1081, divided United States into five zones for purposes of this subchapter.
§ 20.5 Conditions governing investigations. ( a ) One complete lamp, with assembly and detail drawings that show the construction of the lamp and the materials of which it is made, should be submitted at the time the application for investigation is made. This material should be sent prepaid to the U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration, Approval and Certification Center, 765 Technology Drive, Triadelphia, WV 26059.
( b ) When the lamp has been inspected by MSHA, the applicant will be notified as to the amount of material that will be required for the test. He will also be notified of the date on which the tests will start and will be given an opportunity to witness the tests.
( c ) *Observers at formal investigations and demonstrations.* No one shall be present during any part of the formal investigation conducted by MSHA which leads to approval for permissibility except the necessary Government personnel, representatives of the applicant, and such other persons as may be mutually agreed upon by the applicant and MSHA. Upon granting approval for permissibility, MSHA will announce that such approval has been granted to the device and may thereafter conduct, from time to time in its discretion, public demonstrations of the tests conducted on the approved device. Those who attend any part of the investigation, or any public demonstration, shall be present solely as observers; the conduct of the investigation and of any public demonstration shall be controlled by MSHA. Results of chemical analyses of material and all information contained of material and all information contained in the drawings, specifications, and instructions shall be deemed confidential and their disclosure will be appropriately safeguarded by MSHA.
( d ) Permissibility tests will not be made unless the lamp is complete and in a form that can be marketed.
( e ) The results of the tests shall be regarded as confidential by all present at the tests and shall not be made public in any way prior to the formal approval of the lamp by MSHA.
( f ) No verbal report of approval or disapproval will be made to the applicant. Approval will be made only in writing by MSHA. The applicant shall not be free to advertise the lamp as being permissible, or as having passed the tests, prior to receipt of formal notice of approval.
[Sched. 10C, May 17, 1938, as amended by Supp. 1, 20 FR 2719, Apr. 23, 1955; 43 FR 12314, Mar. 24, 1978; 60 FR 35693, July 11, 1995; 73 FR 52212, Sept. 9, 2008]
(March 28, 1978)

#### In the Matter of Joseph Hofbauer, A Child Alleged to be Neglected. Saratoga County Department of Social Services et al., Respondents; Robert P. Whalen, as Commissioner of Health of the State of New York, et al., Intervenors-Appellants.

Appeal from an order of the Saratoga County Family Court, entered March 16, 1978, which denied the motion of the appellant public officials to intervene in the neglect proceeding. Motion for leave to appeal granted, without costs. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and motion to intervene granted. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Staley, Jr. and Larkin, JJ., concur.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00366-CR

Eric Gerard Holmes Jr.

v.

The State of Texas

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

From Criminal District Court No. 3

of Tarrant County (1085668D) 

March 27, 2014

Opinion by Justice Gardner 

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

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

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Anne Gardner__________________

 Justice Anne Gardner
#### In the Matter of Joanne Walsh, Respondent. Arthur Warner et al., Respondents-Appellants.

Motion for leave to submit a brief denied. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Yalente, McNally and Eager, JJ.