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

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.27

                               AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO
               ALLEGIANCE TELECOM, INC. RESTRICTED STOCK AGREEMENT

     This Amendment No. 2 (this "AMENDMENT") to the Allegiance Telecom, Inc.
Restricted Stock Agreement dated June 7, 2002 (as amended on September 12, 2002,
the "ORIGINAL AGREEMENT") is being signed as of February 28, 2003, by and
between Allegiance Telecom, Inc., a Delaware corporation and the person signing
below. This Amendment amends certain provisions of the Original Agreement.
Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment have the meanings given
to such terms in the Original Agreement.

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises made herein and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, agree as
follows:

1.   You agree that the vesting date of March 3, 2003 as set forth in Paragraph
2(a) of the Original Agreement shall be amended to be the date that is the
second business day following the Company's public release of earnings for
fiscal year 2002. For example, if the Company publicly releases its 2002
year-end earnings on March 4, 2003, then your vesting date would be March 6,
2003.

2.   Other than as set forth above, this Amendment does not amend, modify or
supplement any other terms of the Original Agreement. This Amendment and the
Original Agreement embody the complete agreement and understanding among the
parties and supersede and preempt any prior understandings, agreements or
representations by or among the parties, written or oral, which may have related
to the subject matter hereof in any way.

3.   This Amendment may be executed in separate counterparts, none of which need
contain the signature of more than one party hereto but each of which will be
deemed to be an original and all of which taken together will constitute one and
the same agreement.

     Signed and effective as of the 28th day of February 2003.

                                       Signed:
                                               --------------------------
                                       Printed Name:
                                                     --------------------

                                       ALLEGIANCE TELECOM, INC,


                                       By:
                                           ------------------------------

<Page>

                                       Name: Royce J. Holland
                                       Its: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

                                        2
# C_2014261EN.01003601.xml

| 11.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/36

---

Action brought on 26 May 2014 — Petro Suisse Intertrade v Council

(Case T-373/14)

2014/C 261/61

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Petro Suisse Intertrade Co. SA (Pully, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey, D. Rovetta, D. Sellers and N. Pilkington, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Council decision contained in the letter of 14 March 2014, addressed to the lawyers of the applicant, concerning review of the list of designated persons and entities in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, as amended by Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012, and in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012, in so far as the contested decision constitutes a refusal to remove the applicant from the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Council decision contained in the letter of 14 March 2014, addressed to the lawyers of the applicant, concerning review of the list of designated persons and entities in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, as amended by Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012, and in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012, in so far as the contested decision constitutes a refusal to remove the applicant from the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures;

| — | join the present proceedings with the case T-156/13 in accordance with Article 50(1) of the Rules of Procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

join the present proceedings with the case T-156/13 in accordance with Article 50(1) of the Rules of Procedure;

| — | order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, alleging that the statement of grounds was insufficient and that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment.

The applicant argues that although it is a subsidiary of the listed company National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), the Council has not substantiated that this entails any economic benefit for the Iranian State that would be contrary to the objective pursued by the contested measures.

---
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Robin Raina, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of ebix.com, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this  report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  | August 13, 2003 | By:    | /s/ Robin Raina         |   |
|--------|-----------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |            |   | Robin Raina             |
|   |            |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
# C_2014129EN.01002401.xml

| 28.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/24

---

Action brought on 23 January 2014 — Blackrock v OHIM (INVESTING FOR A NEW WORLD)

(Case T-59/14)

(2014/C 129/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Blackrock, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, K. Gilbert and M. Blair, Solicitors)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 October 2013 given in Case R 573/2013-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 October 2013 given in Case R 573/2013-1;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘INVESTING FOR A NEW WORLD’ for services in Classes 35 and 36 — Community trade mark application No 11 144 706

Decision of the Examiner: Found the trade mark applied for not eligible for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(2) CTMR.

---
[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:****Yakima River basin water storagefeasibility study: final planning report/environmental impact statement
 
Vol. 1 | Vol. 2
 
SuDoc Number:I 27.82:Y 1/V.1-2
Item Number:0660-I (online)
CGP System Number:001016251
 
 
 
** 
**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 29, 2017********
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.27

                   MODIFICATION AND REAFFIRMATION OF GUARANTY

      The undersigned, BIG 5 SPORTING GOODS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation
("Guarantor"), has previously executed that certain Guaranty, dated March 8,
1996 (as amended, the "Guaranty"), in favor of THE CIT GROUP/BUSINESS CREDIT,
INC., a New York corporation ("CITBC"), respecting the obligations of Big 5
Corp., a Delaware corporation ("Debtor"), arising under that certain Financing
Agreement, dated March 8, 1996 (the "Prior Financing Agreement"). Guarantor
hereby acknowledges the terms and provisions of that certain Amended and
Restated Financing Agreement, dated as of even date herewith (the "Amended
Agreement"), by and among Debtor, on the one hand, and CITBC, as agent and
lender, and certain other lenders a party thereto, on the other hand, which such
agreement amends and restates the Prior Financing Agreement.

      In connection with the forgoing, Guarantor hereby reaffirms and agrees
that: (i) the Guaranty remains in full force and effect; (ii) nothing in such
Guaranty obligates CITBC or Lenders (as such term is defined in the Amended
Agreement) to notify the Guarantor of any changes in the financial
accommodations made available to Debtor or to seek reaffirmations of the
Guaranty; and (iii) no requirement to so notify the undersigned or to seek
reaffirmations in the future shall be implied by the execution of this
reaffirmation. Without limiting the forgoing, the undersigned hereby
acknowledges, accepts and agrees that (a) the term, the "Agreement", as used in
the Guaranty shall hereinafter mean the Amended Agreement, as amended,
supplemented, and modified, from time to time; and (b) the term, "Anniversary
Date", as used in the Guaranty shall hereinafter mean the date three (3) years
from the date hereof and the same date in every year thereafter.

Dated as of March 20, 2003

                                           BIG 5 SPORTING GOODS CORPORATION,
                                           a Delaware corporation


                                           By:  /s/ Charles P. Kirk
                                               ---------------------------------
                                           Name:  Charles P. Kirk
                                                 -------------------------------
                                           Title: Senior Vice President and
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
                                                  ------------------------------

Accepted by:

THE CIT GROUP/BUSINESS CREDIT, INC.,
a New York corporation


By:  /s/ Thomas A. Hopkins
    --------------------------------
Name:  Thomas A. Hopkins
      ------------------------------
Title: Vice President
       -----------------------------
#### Robert W. Millette *v.*Frederick G. Reincke, Warden, Connecticut State Prison

*Arnold H. Klau,*special public defender, for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Thomas F. Wall,*state’s attorney, for the appellee (defendant).

Argued December 3

decided December 3, 1968

The motion by the plaintiff to have the judgment against him set aside for failure of the defendant to defend the appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County with proper diligence is denied.
Editorial Note on Part 868
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 868 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 868.5340 Nasal oxygen cannula. ( a ) *Identification.* A nasal oxygen cannula is a two-pronged device used to administer oxygen to a patient through both nostrils.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 868.9.
[47 FR 31142, July 16, 1982, as amended at 59 FR 63007, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38794, July 25, 2001]
Exhibit 32 Certification   The
undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: (1)

The
 accompanying  Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities                   Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)

The
information  contained in the  accompanying  Report fairly  presents,  in all material
 respects,  the                   financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.  Date: August 12, 2003
     By: /s/ Marti MorfittMarti MorfittPresident
& Chief Executive OfficerDate: August 12, 2003
     By: /s/ Marcia L. OBrienMarcia L. OBrien
Interim Chief Financial Officer
# C_2018328EN.01003601.xml

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Taihan Electric Wire v Commission

(Case T-446/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Insurmountable barriers to entry - Inapplicability of Article 101 - Duration of involvement - Equal treatment - Calculation of the fine - Value of sales - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Taihan Electric Wire Co. Ltd (Anyang-Si, South Korea) (represented by: R. Antonini and E. Monard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, C. Giolito and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Taihan Electric Wire Co. Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Taihan Electric Wire Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.

---
# C_2015213EN.01003601.xml

| 29.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/36

---

Order of the General Court of 30 April 2015 — EEB v Commission

(Case T-250/14) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Correspondence between the Commission and two Member States regarding the implementation of a Transitional National Plan (TNP) under Directive 2010/75/EU - Implied refusal of access - No need to adjudicate - New claims - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 213/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Stothers, Solicitor, M. Van Kerckhove and C. Simphal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the implied decision of the Commission of 13 February 2014 refusing access to documents from the Republic of Bulgaria and the Czech Republic.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1) | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the claims of the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) for the annulment of the implied decision of the European Commission of 13 February 2014 refusing access to documents from the Republic of Bulgaria and the Czech Republic. |
| --- | --- |

1)

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the claims of the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) for the annulment of the implied decision of the European Commission of 13 February 2014 refusing access to documents from the Republic of Bulgaria and the Czech Republic.

| 2) | The claims for damages presented by the EEB are dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

2)

The claims for damages presented by the EEB are dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 3) | The Commission is ordered to pay, in addition to its own costs, those of the EEB. |
| --- | --- |

3)

The Commission is ordered to pay, in addition to its own costs, those of the EEB.

---

(1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7883 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7883

   To amend title 38, United States Code, to modify the duty of the 
   Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide a veteran with a medical 
     examination in connection with certain claims for disability 
  compensation under the laws administered by the Secretary, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 5, 2024

   Mr. Self introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 38, United States Code, to modify the duty of the 
   Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide a veteran with a medical 
     examination in connection with certain claims for disability 
  compensation under the laws administered by the Secretary, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Toxic Exposures Examination 
Improvement Act''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF DUTY OF SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO 
              PROVIDE FOR MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH 
              CERTAIN CLAIMS FOR DISABILITY COMPENSATION; 
              CLARIFICATIONS WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN EXPOSURE TRACKING 
              RECORD SYSTEM.

    (a) Modification.--Section 1168(a) of title 38, United States Code, 
is amended by striking ``such evidence is not sufficient to establish a 
service connection for the disability'' and inserting ``such evidence 
does not contain sufficient medical evidence for the Secretary to make 
a decision on the claim''.
    (b) Clarifications.--Such title is further amended--
            (1) in section 1119(a)(1), by inserting ``that indicates 
        that the veteran was subject to a toxic exposure'' after 
        ``tracking record system''; and
            (2) in subclause (i) of section 1710(e)(4)(C), by inserting 
        ``that indicates that the veteran was subject to a toxic 
        exposure'' before ``for the veteran''.
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 880
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 880 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 880.5740 Suction snakebite kit. ( a ) *Identification.* A suction snakebite kit is a device consisting of a knife, suction device, and tourniquet used for first-aid treatment of snakebites by removing venom from the wound.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 880.9.
[45 FR 69682, Oct. 21, 1980, as amended at 59 FR 63011, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38805, July 25, 2001]