alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
10.2


 


FORM OF NOMINEE VOTING COMMITMENT


 


Reference is hereby made to the Securities Purchase
Agreement, dated April 21, 2003 (the “Securities Purchase Agreement”), by and
between DepoMed, Inc., a California corporation (the “Company”) and the
purchasers named on the Schedule of Purchasers attached as Exhibit A
thereto (the “Purchasers”).  This letter shall be effective as of the
Closing (as defined in the Securities Purchase Agreement).


 


In partial consideration of the Purchasers’ respective
agreements to enter into and perform their respective obligations under the
Securities Purchase Agreement and for other good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which hereby are acknowledged, the undersigned
hereby covenants and commits to vote or cause to be voted all shares of Company
Voting Stock (as defined below) now or hereafter owned or beneficially owned or
controlled by the undersigned to elect the persons designated as the MDS
Nominee and the Company Nominee (each, as defined in the Securities Purchase
Agreement) pursuant to Section 4.12 of the Securities Purchase Agreement
to the Board of Directors of the Company at each regular or special stockholder
meeting, or in connection with any action taken by written consent, held or
taken to elect members of the Board of Directors of the Company.


 


For purposes of this letter, “Company Voting Stock”
means any and all shares, interests, participations or other equivalents
(however designated) of corporate stock of the Company entitling the holders
thereof to vote in an election of the Board of Directors of the Company.


 


[signature page follows]


 

















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed and
delivered this Nominee Voting Commitment as of the date set forth below, to be
effective as of the Closing.


 


	
   

  	
  Signature:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name of Shareholder:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title of Signatory

  
	
   

  	
  if Shareholder is an entity:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Address

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Date: 

  	
   

  	
  , 2003
§ 125.189 Demonstration of emergency evacuation procedures. ( a ) Each certificate holder must show, by actual demonstration conducted in accordance with paragraph (a) of appendix B of this part, that the emergency evacuation procedures for each type and model of airplane with a seating of more than 44 passengers, that is used in its passenger-carrying operations, allow the evacuation of the full seating capacity, including crewmembers, in 90 seconds or less, in each of the following circumstances: ( 1 ) A demonstration must be conducted by the certificate holder upon the initial introduction of a type and model of airplane into passenger-carrying operations. However, the demonstration need not be repeated for any airplane type or model that has the same number and type of exits, the same cabin configuration, and the same emergency equipment as any other airplane used by the certificate holder in successfully demonstrating emergency evacuation in compliance with this paragraph.
( 2 ) A demonstration must be conducted— ( i ) Upon increasing by more than 5 percent the passenger seating capacity for which successful demonstration has been conducted; or
( ii ) Upon a major change in the passenger cabin interior configuration that will affect the emergency evacuation of passengers.
( b ) If a certificate holder has conducted a successful demonstration required by § 121.291(a) in the same type airplane as a part 121 or part 123 certificate holder, it need not conduct a demonstration under this paragraph in that type airplane to achieve certification under part 125.
( c ) Each certificate holder operating or proposing to operate one or more landplanes in extended overwater operations, or otherwise required to have certain equipment under § 125.209, must show, by a simulated ditching conducted in accordance with paragraph (b) of appendix B of this part, that it has the ability to efficiently carry out its ditching procedures.
( d ) If a certificate holder has conducted a successful demonstration required by § 121.291(b) in the same type airplane as a part 121 or part 123 certificate holder, it need not conduct a demonstration under this paragraph in that type airplane to achieve certification under part 125.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1"> The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Christopher Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Kate Paek, J.), rendered August 17, 2017, convicting him, after a nonjury trial, of harassment in the second degree, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Kate Paek, J.), rendered August 17, 2017, affirmed.</p><p>The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (<i>see People v Danielson</i>, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The credibility issues raised by defendant were properly placed before the trier of fact and we find no reason on the record before us to disturb the court's determination to credit the complaining witness's testimony rather than defendant's.</p><p>Defendant's argument that the evidence of his prior attack on the same complainant violated his rights to due process and a fair trial, is not preserved (<i>see </i>CPL ยง470.05[2]; <a href="../2011/2011_01541.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Dickson</i>, 82 AD3d 1289</a>, 1290 [2011], <i>lv denied </i>16 NY3d 894 [2011]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in its <i>Molineux </i>ruling, given that the testimony about the prior attack helped to explain why the victim delayed in reporting the incident to the police <i>(</i>see<a href="../2015/2015_05357.htm" target="_blank"><i> People v Maxey, </i>129 AD3d 1664</a>, 1665 [2015], <i>lv denied </i>27 NY3d 1002 [2016]; <a href="../2012/2012_06678.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Justice</i>, 99 AD3d 1213</a>, 1215 [2012], <i>lv denied </i>20 NY3d 1012 [2013]). Moreover, such evidence was not unduly prejudicial, particularly in the context of a nonjury trial because the trial court is presumed, by virtue of learning and experience, to have considered only the competent evidence adduced in reaching its determination (<a href="../2003/2003_18872.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Torres, </i>1 AD3d 621</a> [2003], <i>lv denied </i>1 NY3d 602 [2004]). </p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: January 25, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
#### § 121.316 Fuel tanks.

Each turbine powered transport category airplane operated after October 30, 1991, must meet the requirements of § 25.963(e) of this chapter in effect on October 30, 1989.

[Doc. No. 25614, 54 FR 40354, Sept. 29, 1989]
# Official Journal L 169/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 169 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6329 May 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 169

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6329 May 2020

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS |
| | * | Agreement for the termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties between the Member States of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

*

Agreement for the termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties between the Member States of the European Union

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
<PAGE>

FRONTIER INSURANCE GROUP, INC.     SEPTEMBER 30,      FORM 10-Q       EXHIBIT 11

                        Computation of Per Share Earnings
                 (in thousands, except per share dollar amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  Three Months                        Nine Months
                                                               Ended September 30,                Ended September 30,
Primary earnings per share:                                     1998            1997              1998            1997  
                                                               -------        -------            ------          ------
<S>                                                            <C>            <C>               <C>             <C>    
Net Income                                                     $14,193        $  14,758         $49,401         $42,081
                                                               =======        =========         =======         =======

Weighted average shares of
  common stock outstanding (1)                                  37,482           34,851          37,399          33,143
                                                                ======           ======          ======          ======

Net income per share of
  common stock outstanding (1)                                    $.38             $.42           $1.32           $1.27
                                                                  ====             ====           =====           =====

Fully diluted earnings per share:

Net Income                                                     $16,000          $16,529         $54,760         $47,356
                                                               =======          =======         =======         =======

Weighted average shares of
  common stock and common stock
  equivalents outstanding (1)                                   45,699           42,945          45,644          41,237
                                                                ======           ======          ======          ======

Net income per share of
  common stock and common stock
  equivalents outstanding (1)                                     $.35             $.38           $1.20           $1.15
                                                                  ====             ====           =====           =====
</TABLE>

-------------

(1)  Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding have been adjusted to
     give effect to all Company's common stock dividends and stock splits.
     Accordingly, net income per share of common stock has been adjusted.




<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 21.1



Significant Subsidiaries of the Registrant



The following are significant subsidiaries of Knight Capital Group, Inc. as of December 31, 2007 and the states in
which they are organized. Indentation indicates the principal parent of each subsidiary. Except as otherwise specified, in each case Knight Capital Group, Inc. owns, directly or indirectly, at least 99% of the voting securities of each subsidiary.
The names of particular subsidiaries have been omitted because, considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, they would not constitute, as of December 31, 2007, a significant subsidiary as that term is defined in Rule 1-02(w)
of Regulation S-X under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.



|                                         |  |                
|---------------------------------------- |  | ---------------
|Name                                     |  | State of Entity
|Knight Capital Group, Inc.               |  | Delaware       
|Knight/Trimark, Inc.                     |  | Delaware       
|Knight Securities General, Inc.          |  | Delaware       
|Knight Securities Operations, Inc.       |  | Delaware       
|Knight Equity Markets, L.P.              |  | Delaware       
|Knight Capital Markets LLC               |  | Delaware       
|DTI Acquisition LLC                      |  | Delaware       
|DT Holdings (GP) LLC                     |  | Delaware       
|DT Holdings (LP) LLC                     |  | Delaware       
|Direct Trading Institutional, L.P.       |  | Delaware       
|Knight Equity Markets International Ltd. |  | United Kingdom 
|KFP Holdings I LLC                       |  | Delaware       
|Deephaven Capital Management LLC         |  | Delaware       
|Hotspot FX, Inc                          |  | Delaware       
|Hotspot FXr, L.L.C.                      |  | New Jersey     
|Hotspot FXi, L.L.C.                      |  | New Jersey     
|ValuBond, Inc.                           |  | Georgia        
|Knight BondPoint, Inc                    |  | Georgia
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7359

ALBERTO BUSTILLO,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

A. D. ROBINSON, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate

Judge. (CA-03-348)

Submitted: January 28, 2005 Decided: February 28, 2005

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alberto Bustillo, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Winslow Reed, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Alberto Bustillo seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Bustillo 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 contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 21.1



Significant Subsidiaries of the Registrant



The following are significant subsidiaries of Knight Capital Group, Inc. as of December 31, 2006 and the states in
which they are organized. Indentation indicates the principal parent of each subsidiary. Except as otherwise specified, in each case Knight Capital Group, Inc. owns, directly or indirectly, at least 99% of the voting securities of each subsidiary.
The names of particular subsidiaries have been omitted because, considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, they would not constitute, as of December 31, 2006, a significant subsidiary as that term is defined in Rule 1-02(w)
of Regulation S-X under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.



|                                         |  |                       
|---------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|Name                                     |  | State of Entity       
|Knight Capital Group, Inc.               |  | Delaware              
|Knight/Trimark, Inc.                     |  | Delaware              
|Knight Securities General, Inc.          |  | Delaware              
|Knight Securities Operations, Inc.       |  | Delaware              
|Knight Equity Markets, L.P.              |  | Delaware              
|Knight Capital Markets LLC               |  | Delaware              
|DTI Acquisition LLC                      |  | Delaware              
|DT Holdings (GP) LLC                     |  | Delaware              
|DT Holdings (LP) LLC                     |  | Delaware              
|Direct Trading Institutional, L.P.       |  | Delaware              
|Direct Edge ECN LLC                      |  | Delaware              
|Knight Roundtable Holdings Limited       |  | United Kingdom        
|Knight Roundtable Europe Limited         |  | Jersey Channel Islands
|Knight Equity Markets International Ltd. |  | United Kingdom        
|KFP Holdings I LLC                       |  | Delaware              
|Deephaven Capital Management LLC         |  | Delaware              
|Hotspot FX, Inc                          |  | Delaware              
|Hotspot FXr, LLC                         |  | New Jersey            
|Hotspot FXi, LLC                         |  | New Jersey            
|ValuBond, Inc                            |  | Georgia               
|ValuBond Securities, Inc                 |  | Georgia
*

 After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination

of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

AUG 4 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

PUBLISH

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

JOSEPH GRIEVESON,

Petitioner,

v. No. 96-9533

IMMIGRATION & 

NATURALIZATION SERVICE, 

Respondent.

On Petition for Review from the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

(BIA No. A30 360 088)

Submitted on the briefs:*

Joseph Grieveson, pro se.

Brenda E. Ellison, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jane Gomez, Office of Immigration

Litigation, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before EBEL, KELLY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.
1

 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a) was repealed by the Illegal Immigration Reform and

Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009, enacted

September 30, 1996, and replaced by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. In the present case, pre-IIRIRA

standards apply.

2

This case is before the court based on a motion by Respondent Immigration and

Naturalization Service to dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner

Grieveson did not respond to the motion despite court orders directing him to do so.

On April 24, 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), Pub.

L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, was signed into law. Section 440(a) of the AEDPA

amended 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(10) to provide in relevant part that “[a]ny final order of

deportation against an alien who is deportable by reason of having committed a criminal

offense covered in section 1251(a)(2)(A)(iii), (B), (C), or (D) . . . shall not be subject to

review by any court.” 1

The Immigration and Naturalization Service charged Joseph Grieveson as deportable

under 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2)(A)(iii), an alien convicted of an aggravated felony, and under

8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2)(B)(i), an alien convicted of a controlled substance violation. In

September 1995, an Immigration Judge found him deportable as charged, denied his

application for relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c), and ordered him deported from the United

States to Canada. In an August 2, 1996 decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals 

dismissed his appeal. Mr. Grieveson filed his petition for review on September 3, 1996,

which was several months after the AEDPA was signed into law. 
3

We concluded this appeal is barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(10), as amended by

Section 440(a) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Petitioner Grieveson

was found deportable for offenses specified in 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(10).

The motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The petition for review is DISMISSED for

lack of jurisdiction. The mandate will issue forthwith.
§ 121.707 Alteration and repair reports. ( a ) Each certificate holder shall, promptly upon its completion, prepare a report of each major alteration or major repair of an airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance of an aircraft operated by it.
( b ) The certificate holder shall submit a copy of each report of a major alteration to, and shall keep a copy of each report of a major repair available for inspection by, the representative of the Administrator who is assigned to it.
# IMMC.EESC-2022-00760-AC.ENG.xhtml.EESC-2022-00760-00-00-AC-TRA-EN.docx

| OPINION |
| --- |
| European Economic and Social Committee |
| Tax-free shops situated in the French terminal

  of the Channel Tunnel |
| _____________ |
| Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2008/118/EC and Directive (EU) 2020/262 (recast) as regards tax-free shops situated in the French terminal of the Channel Tunnel

  [COM(2021) 817 final - 2021/0418 (CNS)] |
| |
| ECO/578 |
| |
| Category C |

OPINION

European Economic and Social Committee

Tax-free shops situated in the French terminal

  of the Channel Tunnel

_____________

Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2008/118/EC and Directive (EU) 2020/262 (recast) as regards tax-free shops situated in the French terminal of the Channel Tunnel

  [COM(2021) 817 final - 2021/0418 (CNS)]

ECO/578

Category C

EN

Referral

| Referral | Council of the European Union, 20/01/2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 113 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion |
| Adopted at plenary | 23/02/2022 |
| Plenary session No | 567 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 214/0/8 |

Referral

Council of the European Union, 20/01/2022

Council of the European Union, 20/01/2022

Legal basis

Legal basis

Article 113 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Article 113 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Section responsible

Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion

Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion

Adopted at plenary

Adopted at plenary

23/02/2022

23/02/2022

Plenary session No

Plenary session No

567

567

Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions)

Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions)

214/0/8

214/0/8

Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2008/118/EC and Directive (EU) 2020/262 (recast) as regards tax-free shops situated in the French terminal of the Channel Tunnel and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 567th plenary session of 23 and 24 February 2022, (meeting of 23 February), by 214 votes with 8 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2008/118/EC and Directive (EU) 2020/262 (recast) as regards tax-free shops situated in the French terminal of the Channel Tunnel and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 567th plenary session of 23 and 24 February 2022, (meeting of 23 February), by 214 votes with 8 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 23 February 2022

Brussels, 23 February 2022

Christa Schweng

Christa Schweng

The president of the European Economic and Social Committee

The president of the European Economic and Social Committee

_____________

_____________