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

Exhibit 10.3 


AMENDMENT NO. 01
to
MASTER EQUIPMENT LEASE 
Dated as of June 4, 2020 (“LEASE”)
between
M&T BANK (“LESSOR”)
and
IEC ELECTRONICS CORP. (“LESSEE”)
 


Lessee and Lessor hereby covenant and agree that the Lease is amended as follows:


A new section 18.3 is added to read as follows:


“18.3. Financial, Affirmative and Negative Covenants:


1. During the term of the Lease, Lessee shall comply at all times with the requirements of Article 8, Representations of Borrower, Article 10, Affirmative Covenants of Borrower, Article 11, Negative Covenants of Borrower, Article 12, Financial Covenants and Article 14, Defaults, (and any other provisions or covenants that relate to these sections), of the Fifth Amended and Restated Credit Facility Agreement dated as of December 14, 2015 between IEC Electronics Corp., as Borrower, and Manufacturers & Traders Trust Company, as Bank as amended from time to time (“Credit Agreement”), as if these provisions were set forth in full herein.


2. Lessee and Lessor agree that in the event the Credit Agreement terminates, is canceled or expires for any reason before the termination, cancellation or expiration of this Lease, Articles 8, 10, 11, 12 and 14 of the Credit Agreement and any other terms, provisions or covenants of the Credit Agreement that relate to these sections shall continue to apply to the Lease, shall survive termination of the Credit Agreement, and such terms, provisions and covenants shall continue to bind the Lessee under the Lease as if they were stated in full in the Lease.


3. In the event M&T Bank is no longer a party to the Credit Agreement, Lessee agrees that Articles 8, 10, 11, 12 and 14 of the Credit Agreement and any other terms, provisions or covenants of the Credit Agreement that relate to these sections shall continue to apply to the Lease, and such terms, provisions and covenants shall continue to bind the Lessee under the Lease as if they were stated in full in the Lease, unless the Lessor requests changes or modifications to financial covenants applicable to Lessee.


4. In the event of a conflict between this Amendment and any previous Lease amendments or the Lease as it relates to the subject matter of this Amendment, the terms of this Amendment shall control. Otherwise, except as specifically amended hereby, all of the terms and conditions set forth in the Lease are unaffected and remain in full force and effect.”


Except as specifically amended hereby, all of the terms and conditions set forth in the Lease are unaffected and remain in full force and effect.












IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE PARTIES HAVE EXECUTED THIS AMENDMENT THIS 4th DAY OF June, 2020.




LESSEE:   LESSOR:
IEC ELECTRONICS CORP.   M&T BANK


        
        
															
	By:	/s/ Thomas L. Barbato		By:	/s/ Tracy Z. Youngman


        Thomas L. Barbato     Tracy Z. Youngman
CFO       Vice President
§ 221.34 What is the law governing ex parte communications? ( a ) Ex parte communications with the ALJ or his or her staff are prohibited in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 554(d).
( b ) This section does not prohibit ex parte inquiries concerning case status or procedural requirements, unless the inquiry involves an area of controversy in the hearing process.
#### § 402.03 Applicability.

Section 7 and the requirements of this part apply to all actions in which there is discretionary Federal involvement or control.

[74 FR 20423, May 4, 2009]
# EUR-Lex - 11957E/PRO/BEI/18 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 11957E/PRO/BEI/18

**TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY, PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK, ARTICLE 18 **

*

*

++++

Article 18

1 . Within the framework of the task set out in Article 130 of this Treaty , the Bank shall grant loans to its members or to private or public undertakings for investment projects to be carried out in the European territories of Member States , to the extent that funds are not available from other sources on reasonable terms .

However , by way of derogation authorised by the Board of Governors , acting unanimously on a proposal from the Board of Directors , the Bank may grant loans for investment projects to be carried out , in whole or in part , outside the European territories of Member States .

2 . As far as possible , loans shall be granted only on condition that other sources of finance are also used .

3 . When granting a loan to an undertaking or to a body other than a Member State , the Bank shall make the loan conditional either on a guarantee from the Member State in whose territory the project will be carried out or on other adequate guarantees .

4 . The Bank may guarantee loans contracted by public or private undertakings or other bodies for the purpose of carrying out projects provided for in Article 130 of this Treaty .

5 . The aggregate amount outstanding at any time of loans and guarantees granted by the Bank shall not exceed 250 % of its subscribed capital .

6 . The Bank shall protect itself against exchange risks by including in contracts for loans and guarantees such clauses as it considers appropriate .
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:FAA-2011-0573; Dir ID 2011-NM-082-AD X-Ref AD 2007-06-18
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 13, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-11030

_____________________

RICHARD SCHWARTZ, Etc.; ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

versus

TXU CORP.; ET AL.,

Defendants,

TXU CORP.; ERLE NYE; 

MICHAEL J. MCNALLY,

Defendants - Appellees,

versus

MARK L. ROTH, Individually, and as Trustee of the Mark L. 

Roth, CPA, Money Purchase Plan & Trust, and Trustee of the 

Mark Lawrence Roth Trust; JOCELYN K. ROTH, Individually, and 

as Trustee of the Mark L. Roth, CPA, Money Purchase Plan & Trust,

Appellants.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas

_________________________________________________________________

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Currently before us is an interlocutory appeal involving the

validity of an injunctive order issued by the district court. This

appeal was argued before the above panel on May 12, 2005. The
2

panel was advised, however, that the parties had reached a

settlement that had been presented to the district court for

approval. Because that settlement would probably moot this

interlocutory appeal, we have, with the understanding of the

parties, held opinion pending approval of the settlement by the

district court. The district court, however, did not approve the

settlement of the federal action until November 8, 2005. See

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, No. 3:02-CV-2243, Nov. 8,

2005 (approving settlement and dismissing the action with

prejudice). This final judgment has been appealed.

In view of these changed circumstances, particularly that the

case has terminated in the district court, we REMAND to the

district court for the limited purpose of further consideration of

its injunctive order in the light of the changed circumstances.

The parties should address whether there is any further necessity

for the injunctive relief. The district court should determine

whether the injunction now should be dismissed, reinstated, or

modified under these changed circumstances and enter an order as it

determines appropriate, with some explanation for its order. 

This panel retains control over any appeal that may result

from the injunctive order of the district court. We hereby notify

the parties that should appeal from the district court order be

deemed necessary, a new notice of appeal should be filed, which

will then be consolidated with this appeal. 
3

Furthermore, we request that, once the district court has

entered its new order, it forward a copy of the same to the clerk

of this court.

The case is REMANDED for the limited and specific purpose

stated.
Case 16-25229 Doc 5 Filed 08/05/16 Entered 08/05/16 12:27:30 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
Case 16-25229 Doc 5 Filed 08/05/16 Entered 08/05/16 12:27:30 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of )

Warren Democrats, Inc.

)

)

AO 2022-17

Agenda Document No. 22-44-A1

CERTIFICATION

I, Vicktoria J. Allen, recording secretary for the Federal Election Commission open 

meeting on September 15, 2022, do hereby certify that the Commission decided by a vote of 6-0 

to approve Agenda Document No. 22-44-A1, which is revised Draft A.

Commissioners Broussard, Cooksey, Dickerson, Lindenbaum, Trainor, and Weintraub 

voted affirmatively for the decision.

Attest:

 September 16, 2022

Date Vicktoria J. Allen

Acting Deputy Secretary of the 

Commission
Overview of Remuneration of Members



 Exhibit 4.23 
 

 
 ASM International N.V. 
 Overview of Remuneration of Members of the 
 Management Board, appointed May 18, 2006

 Mr. C.D. del Prado 
  

			
		
	Term of appointment	  	4 years
		
	Gross Base Year Salary	  	Euro  275.000
		
	Car allowance	  	Euro      7.200
		
	Pension	  	The defined contribution plan offered to members of the Management Board is offered under the same financial conditions to all employees residing in the Netherlands with salaries that exceed the
maximum salary of the industry wide pension fund. Reference is made to the ASM Remuneration Policy, posted on the ASM website; www.asm.com.
		
	Annual incentive	  	The annual incentive varies between 0% and a maximum of 50% of the base salary and is based on the achievement of performance criteria. Reference is made to the ASM Remuneration Policy, posted
on the ASM website; www.asm.com.
		
	Long term incentive	  	Reference is made to the option scheme for the Management Board, approved by the Annual General Meeting of Shareholders held on May 18, 2006.
		
	Mr. J.F.M. Westendorp	  	
		
	Term of appointment	  	4 years
		
	Gross Base Year Salary	  	Euro  330.000
		
	Car allowance	  	Euro      7.200
		
	Pension	  	The defined contribution plan offered to members of the Management Board is offered under the same financial conditions to all employees residing in the Netherlands with salaries that exceed the
maximum salary of the industry wide pension fund. Reference is made to the ASM Remuneration Policy, posted on the ASM website; www.asm.com.
		
	Annual incentive	  	The annual incentive varies between 0% and a maximum of 50% of the base salary and is based on the achievement of performance criteria. Reference is made to the ASM Remuneration Policy, posted
on the ASM website; www.asm.com.
		
	Long term incentive	  	Reference is made to the option scheme for the Management Board, approved by the Annual General Meeting of Shareholders held on May 18, 2006.
Case 16-28594 Doc 1 Filed 09/07/16 Entered 09/07/16 11:00:05 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 10
Case 16-28594 Doc 1 Filed 09/07/16 Entered 09/07/16 11:00:05 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 10
Case 16-28594 Doc 1 Filed 09/07/16 Entered 09/07/16 11:00:05 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 10
Case 16-28594 Doc 1 Filed 09/07/16 Entered 09/07/16 11:00:05 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 10
Case 16-28594 Doc 1 Filed 09/07/16 Entered 09/07/16 11:00:05 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 10
Case 16-28594 Doc 1 Filed 09/07/16 Entered 09/07/16 11:00:05 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 10
Case 16-28594 Doc 1 Filed 09/07/16 Entered 09/07/16 11:00:05 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 10
Case 16-28594 Doc 1 Filed 09/07/16 Entered 09/07/16 11:00:05 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 10
Case 16-28594 Doc 1 Filed 09/07/16 Entered 09/07/16 11:00:05 Desc Main

 Document Page 9 of 10
Case 16-28594 Doc 1 Filed 09/07/16 Entered 09/07/16 11:00:05 Desc Main

 Document Page 10 of 10
###### Editorial Note on [Part 97](/current/title-47/part-97?toc=1)

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 97 appear at [63 FR 54077](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/63-FR-54077), Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 97.505 Element credit.

(a) The administering VEs must give credit as specified below to an examinee holding any of the following license grants:

| Operator class | Unexpired (or within the renewal grace period) | Expired and beyond the renewal grace period |
| --- | --- | --- |
| (1) Amateur Extra | Not applicable | Elements 3 and 4. |
| (2) Advanced; General; or Technician granted before March 21, 1987 | Elements 2 and 3 | Element 3. |
| (3) Technician Plus; or Technician granted on or after March 21, 1987 | Element 2 | No credit. |

(b) The administering VEs must give credit to an examinee holding a CSCE for each element the CSCE indicates the examinee passed within the previous 365 days.

[[79 FR 35291](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/79-FR-35291), June 20, 2014]
Your session is about to expire.Resume session

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Welcome.Log inorregisterCOPS OFFICE RESOURCE CENTER

HomeCatalogCartOrders

                    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                CatalogMatches: 1Offline form Recent Popular Online Print OtherCOPS-P342Combating Child Sex Trafficking: A Guide for Law Enforcement LeadersChild sex trafficking involves a number of crimes requiring law enforcement to collaborate with multiple partners to identify and respond to the child victims while holding accountable those who are responsible for their exploitation. Combating this crime requires working with prosecutors, schools, victim service providers, parole officers, child welfare agencies, community members, and others. This guide aims to help law enforcement leaders adopt effective multidisciplinary approaches to address this crime and provides tips on training, identifying resources, and engaging communities. This guide also includes descriptions of effective programs in five law enforcement jurisdictions.By International Association of Chiefs of PoliceCategories: Community Partnerships • Violent CrimeLanguage: EnglishPublic linkhttps://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter?item=cops-p342Click here to see the entire catalog.Cart:Download PDFBook • Jan 2016Search catalogreset title abstract authors contentContaining text: exact phraseNot containing text: exact phraseLanguage:anyEnglishSpanishHmongVietnameseCategory:anyAlternatives to IncarcerationCommunity PartnershipsData and AnalysisEthics and IntegrityFoundations of Community PolicingHiring, Recruitment, and RetentionHomeland SecurityNew Immigrant CommunitiesNonviolent CrimeOtherPolice OperationsPOP Center ResourceSchool and Campus SafetyTechnologyTribalViolent CrimeYouth SafetyPublished after:Published before:Page1

                    

FOIA | No FEAR Act | Open Government | Privacy | Legal|HelpCopyright (C) U.S. Department of Justice, COPS Office, IT Division, 2012 - 2024. All rights reserved.
Rendered on Mon Mar 4 2024 at 05:12 (UTC-5) in 0.88 secEnterprise Framework 3.21.7.7 • Store Controls 3.3.1.7Survey 500303407 Section 60000560 Rules Hints Inactive
§ 90.703 Eligibility. The following persons are eligible for licensing in the 220-222 MHz band. ( a ) Any person eligible for licensing under subparts B or C of this part.
( b ) Any person proposing to provide communications service to any person eligible for licensing under subparts B or C of this part, on a not-for-profit, cost-shared basis.
( c ) Any person eligible under this part proposing to provide on a commercial basis, station and ancillary facilities for the use of individuals, federal government agencies and persons eligible for licensing under subparts B or C of this part.
[56 FR 19603, Apr. 29, 1991, as amended at 60 FR 15495, Mar. 24, 1995; 62 FR 18935, Apr. 17, 1997]
#### JAMES DIGGS *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 19465)

O’Connell, C. J., and Landau and Daly, Js.1

Argued January 27

officially released May 23, 2000

*Vicki H. Hutchinson,*special public defender, for the appellant (petitioner).

*Frederick W. Fawcett,*supervisory assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, was *Jonathan C.*
      *735
      *Benedict,*state’s attorney, for the appellee (respondent).

The listing of judges reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument.

*Opinion*

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner, James Diggs, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The sole issue raised on appeal is that “[t]he habeas court erred when it denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus.” Following a review of the record and briefs and after hearing the parties at oral argument, we conclude that the petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing that he has been denied a state or federal constitutional right. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.

The record discloses that the petitioner was convicted of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a) on November 9, 1989. The conviction was affirmed in *State*v. *Diggs,*219 Conn. 295, 592 A.2d 949 (1991). The petitioner then filed the present petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

The habeas court’s dismissal of the petitioner’s petition was predicated on a factual review of the petitioner’s claim. “This court does not retry the case or evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. . . . Rather, we must defer to the [trier of fact’s] assessment of the credibility of the witnesses based on its firsthand observation of their conduct, demeanor and attitude.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) *State*v. *McClam,*44 Conn. App. 198, 208, 689 A.2d 475, cert. denied, 240 Conn. 912, 690 A.2d 400 (1997).

In a thoughtful and comprehensive memorandum of decision, the habeas court analyzed the petitioner’s claims and the law applicable thereto. *Diggs*v. *Commissioner of Correction,*46 Conn. Sup. 344, 750 A.2d 1161 (1999). Because the habeas court’s memorandum *736of decision fully addresses the sole issue raised in this appeal, we adopt it as a proper statement of the facts and the applicable law. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See *Scott*v. *Salinas,*57 Conn. App. 649, 749 A.2d 1228 (2000). We conclude that the habeas court had before it sufficient evidence to find as it did.

The judgment is affirmed.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132023 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132023 

 COA: 272291

 Wayne CC: 94-007115-01 

DALRON HARRIS, a/k/a TIMOTHY McCLAIN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 17, 2006 

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

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). 

s1120 

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

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

November 29, 2006 

 Clerk
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41451 (Summary Calendar)

VERNON JACKSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DEFENDANTS, Unidentified,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas

(6:97-CV-556)

- - - - - - - - - - January 7, 1999

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff-Appellant Vernon Jackson seeks leave to file an outof-time appeal of the district court’s dism issal, pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1997e(a), of his civil rights complaint for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies. We must examine the basis of our

own jurisdiction if necessary. M osley v. Cozby

, 813 F.2d 659, 660

(5th Cir. 1987). On remand from this court, the magistrate judge

confirmed that Jackson’s notice of appeal was filed more than 30

day s after the entry of judgment. It is therefore untimely. As

Jackson does not contend that he did not receive timely notice of2

entry of the final judgment, and as he did not file his request for

an out-of-time appeal until after the 30-day period expired, there

is no statutory basis for allowing him an out-of-time appeal. S ee

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) and (6). Jackson’s motion for leave to

file an out-of-time appeal is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED

for lack of jurisdiction. S ee Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1); Mosley

, 813

F.2d at 660. Jackson’s request for appointment of counsel is

DENIED.

MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
Order entered De cember 4, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-20-00605-CV
IN RE JEROME JOHNSON, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 291st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F01-53637-JH

ORDER Before Chief Justice Burns and Justices Osborne and Reichek Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s June 9, 2020 petition for writ of mandamus regarding inaccuracies in the rec ord. All pending
motions are DENIED

.

/s/ AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE