alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>



                       ADDENDUM TO SHAREHOLDERS AGREEMENT

         This ADDENDUM AGREEMENT is dated as of September 18, 2002.

         WHEREAS, the undersigned shareholders executed a SHAREHOLDERS AGREEMENT
(the "Agreement") dated as of May 21, 2002 restricting the sale, assignment,
transfer, encumbrance, or other disposition of Common Stock, par value $.0001
per share (the "Common Stock") of Valesc Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company").

         WHEREAS, the parties now seek to amend such Agreement pursuant to the
terms hereof;

         NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual agreements and
understandings set forth herein, the parties hereby agree as follows:

         1. Shares Subject to Agreement. Notwithstanding any provision to the
contrary in the Agreement, the Agreement shall not extend and apply to 50,000
shares of Common Stock acquired by Harry Kraus and 100,000 shares of Common
Stock acquired by Edward Kraus on the date hereof upon exercise of warrants.

         2. Counterparts. This Addendum Agreement may be executed in any number
of counterparts, all of which together shall constitute a single instrument. It
shall not be necessary that any counterpart be signed by all of the Shareholders
so long as each counterpart shall be signed by one or more of the Shareholders
and so long as each of the other Shareholders shall sign at least one
counterpart which shall be delivered to the Company.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement, or caused
this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives, all as
of the day and year first above written.

                                          VALESC INC.

                                          By:
                                              ----------------------------------
                                          Name:  Jeremy Kraus
                                          Title:  Chief Executive Officer


                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Jeremy Kraus

                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Samuel Cohen

                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Garrett Miller

                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Harry Kraus

                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Edward Kraus
### §5906. Perishable agricultural commodities

Section 5905 of this title does not apply to a container or trailer the contents of which are perishable agricultural commodities (as defined in the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930 (7 U.S.C. 499a et seq.)).

(Pub. L. 103–272, §1(d), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 861; Pub. L. 104–291, title II, §207, Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3457.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 5906 | 49:508(g)(2)(C). | |

Section

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930, referred to in text, is act June 10, 1930, ch. 436, 46 Stat. 531, which is classified generally to chapter 20A (§499a et seq.) of Title 7, Agriculture. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 499a(a) of Title 7 and Tables.

#### Amendments

1996—Pub. L. 104–291 substituted "Section 5905 of this title does" for "Sections 5904(a)(2) and 5905 of this title do".
#### § 725.3 Authority.

Section 502(e)(4) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201) authorizes the Secretary to reimburse States for costs of enforcing the performance standards of the initial regulatory program.
Dear Mr. Parsons,

I feel the need to write you and let you know my fe eling on recent gas well drilling in Tarrant County

. I live in a neighborhood on the eastside of Fort wo rth within a radius of 10 miles of 30 producing gas wells, at least! How can this be, I live in a city, within the city limits?!!! How can we allow such things to happen? This would never be allowed in Europe, I’m from the UK a nd this seems so primitive to me that this is going on my doorstep. I know the technology exists to NOT be drilling so close to where people actually live . I do notice, however, that the much richer people on west side of Fort Worth are not suffering from the same problem, hmmmmm, I also know that the Barnet S hale is under that area too, I guess money talks, or is that where all the Gas/Oil Barons live ?!!!

Well, I digress................I have never suffere d from so many allergies and breathing problems as I’ve experienced in the last 3-4 years of living in this area (15 years in total), coincidence, I think not

. The air AND water quality in Fort Worth has taken a nose dive since allowing this fracking/drilling process to happen, all in the name of greed. Please make companies like Chesapeake spend the money and move these wells out of the city limits away fr om communities. The noise pollution is noticeable too, I hear it at night and I feel it through the ground at my house . Of course, we all know about the recent earthquakes, d rilling on a fault must be really helping that situation, NOT!

BTW, I have not sold my mineral rights to these gre edy corporations, therefore I have not sold my righ t to complain and voice my opinion.

Sincerely,

Wendy Griffiths

Wendy Griffiths
to: Nick Parsons 08/01/2010 12:58 PM Show Details Page 1 of 1

8/9/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settings\nparsons\Local Set tings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web8755.h

...
EXHIBIT 22

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                   SUBSIDIARIES OF ENCORE COMPUTER CORPORATION

                          NAME                                  JURISDICTION               OWNERSHIP
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                               <C>                        <C>
ENCORE COMPUTER U.S., INC                                         DELAWARE                   100%

ENCORE COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL, INC.                               DELAWARE                   100%

ENCORE COMPUTER LIMITEE                                            CANADA                    100%

ENCORE COMPUTER de PUERTO RICO, INC.                              DELAWARE                   100%

ENCORE COMPUTER (IRELAND) LIMITED                                  IRELAND                   100%

ENCORE COMPUTER B.V.                                             NETHERLANDS                 100%

ENCORE COMPUTER NETHERLANDS, B.V.                                NETHERLANDS                 100%

ENCORE COMPUTER (IRISH PARTNERSHIP)                                IRELAND                    50%

LAUDERDALE COMPUTER A.B.                                           SWEDEN                    100%
</TABLE>


                                       58
## No. 01-15-00180-CV

____________________ IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT HOUSTON

______________________ MEDSTAR FUNDING, L.C. and BEACON LEGAL FUNDING,

L.L.C., Appellants vs. MYCHELE REED, as next friend of T.R., a minor, JERRY WAYNE SQUIER and STRIKE, LLC, f/k/a STRIKE CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Appellees

_________________________
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
TO THE HONORABLE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS: COME NOW MEDSTAR FUNDING, L.C. and BEACON LEGAL FUNDING, L.L.C., Appellants, and pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a), respectfully inform the Court that the underlying dispute that was the subject of this appeal has been settled in its entirety, that Appellees have settled this matter with Appellants for consideration, and that therefore, the Appellants no longer wish to pursue this appeal. Appellants therefore ask that this Appeal be dismissed with prejudice. The relief requested in this Motion is unopposed. The Guardian Ad Litem’s attorney did not respond to a faxed copy of the instant motion or to a telephone call regarding same. All costs on appeal are to be borne by the party incurring same. ACCEPTED 01-15-00180-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 5/29/2015 11:33:47 AM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERKPage -2- THE BICKHAM LAW FIRM

/s/David A. Bickham David A. Bickham State Bar No: 02295300 3120 Southwest Frwy., Suite 650 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713)789-4361 Facsimile: (713)523-1816 Email: bickhamlawfirm@yahoo.com COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS MEDSTAR FUNDING, L.C. AND BEACON LEGAL FUNDING, L.LC.Page -3-

. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

### I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT a true and correct copy of th e foregoing Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Appeal has been duly forwarded to all parties and/or counsel of record, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure , on this the 29 th 

### day of May, 2015, addressed as follows: J. Ryan Fowler John D. Sloan, Jr. SLOAN, BAGLEY, HATCHER & PERRY LAW FIRM 3000 Smith Street, Suite 4 Houston, Texas 77006 Nicholas J. Lanza Steve C. Dollinger McCORMICK, LANZA, McNEEL, L.L.P. 4950 Bissonnet Street Bellaire, Texas 77401 Jose R. Lopez, II The Washington Centre 4601 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Houston, Texas 77007

/s/David A. Bickham DAVID A. BICKHAM
Case 1:05-cv-05809 Document 11-1 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 1 of 7� 
Case 1:05-cv-05809 Document 11-1 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 2 of 7� 
Case 1:05-cv-05809 Document 11-1 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 3 of 7� 
Case 1:05-cv-05809 Document 11-1 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 4 of 7� 
Case 1:05-cv-05809 Document 11-1 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 5 of 7� 
Case 1:05-cv-05809 Document 11-1 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 6 of 7� 
Case 1:05-cv-05809 Document 11-1 Filed 06/01/2006 Page 7 of 7�
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON :
###### Editorial Note on Part 75

#### Editorial Note:

The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

#### § 75.517 Power wires and cables; insulation and protection.

[Statutory Provisions]

Power wires and cables, except trolley wires, trolley feeder wires, and bare signal wires, shall be insulated adequately and fully protected.
1The Honorable Ross A. Walters, Chief United States Magistrate Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 00-2478SI

_____________

Charles A. Trobaugh, *

* On Appeal from the United

Appellant, * States District Court

* for the Southern District

v. * of Iowa.

* 

Patrick A. Sondag, * [Not To Be Published]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: March 9, 2001

 Filed: March 19, 2001

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD,

Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Charles Trobaugh appeals the District Court’s1 adverse grant of summary

judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Patrick Sondag, his former public

defender. Plaintiff alleged that defendant had conspired with several unnamed

members of the Pottowattamie County Attorney’s office to deprive him of his Sixth and

Fourteenth Amendment rights in connection with his conviction on state criminal
2

In a motion for judicial notice, which we grant, plaintiff draws our attention to

a state court decision granting him a new trial based on the conflict of interest.

-2-

charges. Upon de novo review of the record, see Dubose v. Kelly, 187 F.3d 999, 1000

(8th Cir. 1999), we affirm. 

Plaintiff offered evidence that defendant had been acting under a conflict of

interest when he defended plaintiff on the criminal charges.2 Plaintiff also offered

evidence that he and defendant disagreed over whether plaintiff should plead guilty to

the charges, and that plaintiff ultimately pleaded guilty despite his wish to go to trial.

We are unable to infer from plaintiff’s evidence, however, or from anything else in the

record, that defendant conspired with the county attorneys to induce plaintiff to plead

guilty. Therefore, defendant is not amenable to suit under section 1983. See Polk

County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (public defender does not act under color

of state law for purposes of § 1983 when performing lawyer’s traditional functions as

counsel to defendant in criminal proceedings); Askew v. Millerd, 191 F.3d 953, 957

(8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (elements of conspiracy claim); Johnson v. Outboard

Marine Corp., 172 F.3d 531, 536 (8th Cir. 1999) (private actors may incur § 1983

liability only if they willingly participate in joint action with public servants acting

under color of state law). 

Accordingly, we affirm. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of First Community Financial Corporation, (the
Company) for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Richard R. Leitzel, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

2. To my knowledge, the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.



|                        |  |     |  |                                             
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------
|Date: February 24, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ Richard R. Leitzel                      
|                        |  |     |  | Richard R. Leitzel, Chief Financial Officer 
|                        |  |     |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
§ 18.15 Changes after approval or certification. If an applicant desires to change any feature of approved equipment or a certified component, he shall first obtain MSHA's concurrence pursuant to the following procedure: ( a ) ( 1 ) Application shall be made as for an original approval or letter of certification requesting that the existing approval or certification be extended to cover the proposed changes and shall be accompanied by drawings, specifications, and related information, showing the changes in detail.
( 2 ) Where the applicant for approval has used an independent laboratory under part 6 of this chapter to perform, in whole or in part, the necessary testing and evaluation for approval of changes to an approved or certified product under this part, the applicant must provide to MSHA as part of the approval application: ( i ) Written evidence of the laboratory's independence and current recognition by a laboratory accrediting organization;
( ii ) Complete technical explanation of how the product complies with each requirement in the applicable MSHA product approval requirements;
( iii ) Identification of components or features of the product that are critical to the safety of the product; and
( iv ) All documentation, including drawings and specifications, as submitted to the independent laboratory by the applicant and as required by this part.
( b ) The application will be examined by MSHA to determine whether inspection or testing will be required. Testing will be required if there is a possibility that the change(s) may adversely affect safety.
( c ) If the change(s) meets the requirements of this part, a formal extension of approval or certification will be issued, accompanied by a list of new or revised drawings, specifications, and related information to be added to those already on file for the original approval or certification.
( d ) Revisions in drawings or specifications that do not involve actual change in the explosion-proof features of equipment may be handled informally.
[43 FR 12313, Mar. 24, 1978, as amended at 52 FR 17514, May 8, 1987; 68 FR 36419, June 17, 2003]
#### § 33.9 Certification of dust-collecting systems.

Manufacturers of dust-collecting systems that are designed for integral use on machines with drilling equipment may apply to MSHA to issue a certificate of performance for such systems. To qualify for a certificate of performance, the dust-collecting system shall have met satisfactorily the test requirements of Subpart C under specified operating conditions, such as type of drilling equipment, drilling speed, and power requirements and the construction thereof shall be adequately covered by specifications and drawings officially recorded and filed with MSHA. Individual parts of dust-collecting systems will not be certified for performance. Certificates of performance may be cited to fabricators of combination units as evidence that further inspection and testing of the dust-collecting system will not be required, provided the dust-collecting requirements of the drilling equipment do not exceed the limits of performance for which the system was certified. Since MSHA does not sanction the use of the words “permissible” or “approved” except as applying to completely assembled equipment, dust-collecting systems, which have been certified only as to performance, shall not be advertised or labeled in a manner inferring that such systems themselves are permissible or approved by MSHA. However, a certified system may be advertised as suitable for use on combination units for which certification may be desired if the limits of its performance are cited. Certified dust-collecting systems shall bear labels or tags which shall contain the following: “Performance-tested Dust Collecting, System, MSHA File No. P/T________,” and name of manufacturer, identifying numbers of the dust-collector parts, and description of the limitations for which performance is certified. MSHA will assign a P/T file number in the certification letter.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D. C.

We hereby consent to the inclusion in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of our
report dated January  14, 2000, on our audit of the  consolidated  financial
statements of Citizens Financial Corp. as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, and for
each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1999, appearing in Part
II, Item 8 of the 1999 Form 10-K of Citizens Financial Corp.

                                                 ARNETT & FOSTER, P.L.L.C.



Charleston, West Virginia
March 14, 2000
                                      115
### §195. Definitions

In this Act:

(1) United states.—The term "United States" includes all territory and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

(2) Territorial waters.—The term "territorial waters of the United States" includes all waters of the territorial sea of the United States as described in Presidential Proclamation 5928 of December 27, 1988.

(June 15, 1917, ch. 30, title XIII, §1, 40 Stat. 231; Pub. L. 96–70, title III, §3302(b), Sept. 27, 1979, 93 Stat. 498; Pub. L. 107–295, title I, §104(a), Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2085.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in text, means act June 15, 1917, ch. 30, 40 Stat. 217. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

Presidential Proclamation 5928 of December 27, 1988, referred to in par. (2), is set out as a note under section 1331 of Title 43, Public Lands.

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 40 of this title. In the original this section defined "United States" as used in act June 15, 1917. Other provisions of that act were contained in sections 31 to 42 of this title and certain sections of former Title 18, Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure. The definition of "United States" as used in present provisions derived from those former sections is covered by section 5 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.

#### Amendments

2002—Pub. L. 107–295 added introductory provisions, designated existing provisions as par. (1), inserted heading, struck out "as used in this Act" before "includes", and added par. (2).

1979—Pub. L. 96–70 struck out "the Canal Zone and" after "this Act includes".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1979 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 96–70 effective Oct. 1, 1979, see section 3304 of Pub. L. 96–70, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3601 of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse.

#### Separability

Act June 15, 1917, ch. 30, title XIII, §4, 40 Stat. 231, provided: "If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Act [see Tables for classification] shall for any reason be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder thereof but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, or part thereof directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered."