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

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.33



20 May 2000

Andrew Smith,
ICE Securities North America LLC,
13/th/ Floor - 645 Madison Ave.,
New York, NY, 10022

Dear Andrew:

Re: Issuance of Warrants - our letter agreement of March 21, 2000 (the "Letter
Agreement")

Thank you for hosting our successful marketing and investor tours in Europe this
month. You opened doors for us into potentially lucrative accounts, and
introduced us to potential institutional investors in London and Geneva.

We believe that these introductions together with the completion of the April
18, 2000 private placement (the "First Placement") have significantly advanced
our business and will lead to the Institutional Round as referenced in our
Letter Agreement.

In recognition of your services and efforts, we agree to amend item E of the
Letter Agreement as follows:

   1.   We will issue to you 250,000 of the ICE Warrants following completion of
        the First Placement.
   2.   We will set the exercise prices for the ICE Warrants as follows:
        a.  $4.50 for 125,000 "A" warrants (estimated Institutional Price)
        b.  $3.38 for 62,500 "B" warrants (25% discount to estimated
            Institutional Price)
        c.  $2.25 for 62,500 "C" warrants (50% discount to estimated
            Institutional Price)
   3.   The exercise prices in item 2 above are based on an estimated
        Institutional Price of $4.50, discounted as provided in the Letter
        Agreement. If the actual Institutional Price per share of the
        Institutional Round is different than $4.50, we will amend the prices of
        these "A", "B", and "C" warrants accordingly.
   4.   We will issue the ICE Warrants to ICE Securities, LLC, your wholly-owned
        broker-dealer in New York.
   5.   The issuance of the ICE Warrants and any other securities under the
        Letter Agreement are subject to compliance with all applicable
        securities laws.
   6.   All other terms of the Letter Agreement remain unchanged.

All defined terms used in this letter that are not defined herein shall have the
meaning ascribed to them in the Letter Agreement.

<PAGE>

Andrew, if this is acceptable to you, please indicate your approval by signing
below and returning to me.

Sincerely,



/s/ David W. Rowat,
Vice President and CFO


Agreed:                        /s/ Andrew P. Smith
                ----------------------------------------------------
                Andrew Smith, CEO, ICE Securities North America, LLC
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christine Stauss, Also Known as Christine Strauss, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 204]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Paño Z. Patsalos, J.), rendered June 8, 1994, convicting her of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant explicitly admitted the amount of the victims’ monetary loss. Under these circumstances, there was no need for the court to conduct a hearing with respect to the proper amount of restitution *(see, People v Kade,*153 AD2d 907).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]) or without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Friedmann and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.
No. 61372.

protest 298060-K (New York).

#### S. C. Amren *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

From a review of the record in this case, the court found nothing tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the classification by the collector. The protest was therefore overruled.
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax Credit Fund VI, L.P., Series 12 (the “Partnership”) for the quarters ended December 31, 2007, September 30, 2007 and June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Melanie R. Wenk., Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership’s general partner, hereby certify that:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that such provisions require the audit report of Local Limited Partnership financial statements to refer to the auditing standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board for the Partnership’s annual financial statements and except that the Report is a cumulative report covering each of the quarters ended December 31, September 30 and June 30, 2007 and





2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Partnership.











/s/Melanie R. Wenk


Melanie R. Wenk


Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.


Date: August 26, 2011
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. NO. CIV. S-04-2483 LKK/DAD

RODNEY L. CUNNINGHAM;

PAMELA L. CUNNINGHAM; and

GUILD MORTGAGE CO.,

Defendants.

 /

On December 16, 2005, the court denied the government’s motion

for summary judgment in the above-captioned case because it was not

timely filed. On January 3, 2006, the government requested leave

to file its motion for summary judgment because “this action is

more properly adjudicated by summary judgment rather than by

trial.” Based on the record, the court agrees. The court,

however, hereby ORDERS as follows:

1. Counsel for the United States is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE

in writing, within ten (10) days of the effective date of this

order, why sanctions should not issue in the above-captioned case

Case 2:04-cv-02483-LKK -DAD Document 36 Filed 01/05/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1 The court notes that by granting this request it does not

condone the failure to adhere to the court’s scheduling order. The

court admonishes plaintiff’s counsel that future non-compliance

with the court’s scheduling order, in this case or others, will

result in more severe sanctions. 

2

in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150).1

2. Hearing on the motion for summary judgment is CONTINUED

to February 27, 2005 on the court’s Law and Motion Calendar

beginning at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 4. 

3. An opposition brief, or statement of non-opposition, shall

be filed by February 6, 2006 at 4:00 p.m. A reply brief shall be

filed by February 13, 2006 at 4:00 p.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 4, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-02483-LKK -DAD Document 36 Filed 01/05/06 Page 2 of 2
Before the Third Division,

December 9, 1954

No. 58585.

protests 167878-K, etc. (New York).

#### Austin Nichols & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *B. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 130, C. A. D. 508) and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Colleen Leavitt, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2468 LKK CMK 

vs.

Shasta County Board of Supervisors, et al.,

Defendants.

 / ORDER

Currently before the court are plaintiff’s “Request for a Hearing on a Writ of

Administrative Mandamus” and her “Request for an order Extending the time to file the Record

of the Proceedings.” 

Plaintiff has requested a hearing on the Writ of Administrative Mandamus on

November 15, 2005. This is not a valid law and motion date in this court. The correct law and

motion date is November 8, 2005. The hearing on the Writ of Mandamus will be set for

November 8, 2005 at 10:00 a.m.

Plaintiff has requested a two week extension to lodge the administrative record

with the court. In her motion, plaintiff states that she expects to deliver the record to the

defendant Shasta County prior to the July 1, 2005 lodging deadline. However, she represents that

defendant County will need time to review the extensive record before certification. Good cause

Case 2:04-cv-02468-LKK -CMK Document 25 Filed 07/05/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

appearing a two week extension is granted. 

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The hearing on the Writ of Mandamus is set for November 8, 2005 at

10:00 a.m. in Redding before United States Magistrate Judge Craig M.

Kellison; and

2. Plaintiff is granted a two week extension until July 15, 2005 to lodge the

administrative record with the court. 

DATED: July 1, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02468-LKK -CMK Document 25 Filed 07/05/05 Page 2 of 2
April 29, 1953

No. 57297.

Suit 4727.

#### United States *v. W.*J. *Westerfield.*

C. A. D. 507.
FILED IN COURT OF APPEALS 12th Court ox Appeals District

No. 12-14-00148- CV

IN THE >iii 12 Court ofAppeals

Mary Lou Petty, Appellant,

v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc, Appellee Appellant's Motion forExtension ofTime to FileAppellant's Reply Brief 

### Appellant, Mary Lou Petty, respectfully asks the Court to extend the due date of its appellant's reply briefby 30days, toMarch 27, 2015. Iknow this motion was due yesterday, the snow day. I do not drive on ice and snow and I wasn't able to do what was necessary to be able to process the required documents.

APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF REPLY BRIEF page 1/3RULE 10.5 INFORMATION 

### 1. Deadline for filing the reply to appellee's briefwas February 25th 2015, your office was closed for a snow day. 2. Length ofextension sought: 30 days, so the new deadline would be March 24th 2015. 3. Facts relied on to reasonably explain the need ofextension: Appellant was reviewing discrepancies in the case and the appellee's brief. Reed referred to the continuance hearing in the trial court. WhenAppellant requested the 

### Reporters Records she was told there were not any. As ofFebruary 26* the trial court acknowledged there was a record on a briefcontinuance hearing on March 5th 2014. I'm sure it was an oversight. But the judge made a statement that I feel is relevant to my case. I would like the opportunity to obtain the report and use it in my defense. 

### 4. This is the only extension that I'll need in the reply to the appellee's brief and it should not take the full 30 days. II. CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE I havecontacted Mr. Reed, the opposing counsel by e-mail and also have spoken to 

### him onthetelephone. He isopposed tothe extension because of thelength oftime it has been. III. CONCLUSION 

### This isAppellant's only extension thatwill berequired tofile herreply brief. I should not take the full 30 days. I respectfully ask the court to grant this final extension for time to acquiring the reporter's recordto the file. The reply bried will be due no later than March24th 2015,in accordance withTEX. R. App. P. 10.5(1) & 38.6(d).



### Appellant's Motion for Extension Page 2/3Respectfully Submitted, 

# By: Itiimt 4U Mary L<5ifi Petty 

### 744 ElizabethDR Bullard TX 75757 onegentledove(@,peoplepc.com ProSE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

### I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document will be sent by 

### facsimile by the February 27th and by certify mail to Mr. Reed, the opposing counsel. Fax No: (972)789-1606 Mr. Kendal B. Reed Anderson Tobin, PLLC. 13355Noel Road Dallas Texas 75240



### Appellant's Motion for Extension ofReply Brief Page 3/3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARL McCEE FOUNTAIN,

Petitioner, 2:04-cv-2350-GEB-DAD-P

vs.

JAMES YATES, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On June 8, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Case 2:04-cv-02350-GEB-DAD Document 44 Filed 07/24/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 8, 2006, are adopted in full; and

2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.

Dated: July 24, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02350-GEB-DAD Document 44 Filed 07/24/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 63122.

#### Abels Wasserberg & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/16868 (New York).

Opinon by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C.C.P.A. 15, C.A.D. 458), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 50987.

#### Protests 51122-K, etc., of Continental Ceramics Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 64879.

#### J. Einstein et al. *v.*United States,

protests 227813-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of nylon fabrics similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Sternberg Bros.*(47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 23.2

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-00175, 33-16187, 33-00176, 2-76657, 2-
91931, 33-16188, 33-38361, 2-40012, 2-87193, 2-61721, 2-89418, 33-38360, 33-
38361, 33-52760, 33-52758, 33-52756, 33-52762, 333-16113, 333-56119, 333-56752
and 333-62759) and Form S-3 (File No. 333-61741) of Keane, Inc. of our report
dated February 26, 1999 relating to the financial statements which appears in
this Form 10-K.



                                        /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
March 29, 2001
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 47 (Monday, March 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 11014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4392]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-330-000]


Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

March 6, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 1, 2007, Northern Natural Gas Company 
(Northern) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets attached to the filing, 
proposed to be effective on April 1, 2007:
    Northern further states that copies of the filing have been mailed 
to each of its customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). 
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on 
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bafcffe8f9f5d4d6d3d4dfe9cfcacad5c8cefadcdfc8d994ddd5cc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4c0a091e0f0322202522291f393c3c233e380c2a293e2f622b233a">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-4392 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JAMES E. EVERSON, Sergeant, U.S. Air Force, Appellant

19 USCMA 70, 41 CMR 70

No. 22,313

November 14, 1969

*Colonel Bertram Jacobson*and *Lieutenant Colonel Leonard Eichner*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Robert W. Vayda*and *Major Donald B. Strickland*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Ferguson, Judge:

The accused was convicted by special court-martial, convened at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, of one specification each of assault with a dangerous weapon and careless discharge of a firearm under circumstances such as to endanger human life, in violation of Articles 138 and 134, Uniform, Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 928 and 934, respectively. He- was sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge and confinement at hard labor for three months. The convening authority affirmed the findings and sentence and designated the retraining facility at Lowry Air Force Base, Colorado, as the place of confinement. The officer *71exercising general court-martial jurisdiction also approved the findings and sentence but suspended the bad-conduct discharge for six months with provision for automatic remission. He designated the correctional facility, Nellis Air Force Base, as the place of confinement. The board of review affirmed without change. We granted review to determine the validity of the accused’s conviction in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in O’Callahan v Parker, 395 US 258, 23 L Ed 2d 291, 89 S Ct 1683 (1969).

The offenses occurred in front of the accused’s civilian residence in North Las Vegas, Nevada, and the victim of the assault was a serviceman. For the purpose of this opinion the two offenses, though not multipli-eious, must be considered together for the victim was shot in the neck when the accused carelessly discharged the firearm.

In United States v Nichols, 19 USCMA 43, 41 CMR 43, a majority of this Court held that the robbery of one serviceman by another is triable by court-martial. See also United States v Plamondon, 19 USCMA 22, 41 CMR 22. The same result was reached in cases involving the unlawful entry of the civilian residence of a serviceman and the larceny of his off-base property. See generally United States v Rego, 19 USCMA 9, 41 CMR 9; United States v Camacho, 19 USCMA 11, 41 CMR 11; United States v Cook, 19 USCMA 13, 41 CMR 13. I dissented in those cases and need not restate my views.

Suffice to say since it has now become the law of this Court that where an offense cognizable under the Code is perpetrated against the person or property of another serviceman, regardless of the circumstances, the offense is cognizable by court-martial, I have no alternative but to follow it.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge DAR-DEN concur.
No. 51740.

#### Protest 997298-G of O. E. Olivieri (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Stephen Rug Mills*v. *United States*(32 C. C. P. A. 110, C. A. D. 293), and by the court’s decision on remand in Abstract 50056. In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

APPROXIMATELY $9101.00 IN

U.S. CURRENCY,

2000 TOYOTA TUNDRA, VIN: 

5TBRT341XYS004769,

CALIFORNIA, LICENSE NUMBER

6B33013, 

Defendants.

___________________________/

STEVEN CABALLERO, 

Claimant. 

___________________________/

No. CIV-S-04-1896 MCE/DAD

ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND

DISPOSITION

Pursuant to the representations of the attorney for

plaintiff, the court has determined that this case is settled.

In accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 16-160,

dispositional documents are to be filed on or before November 28,

2005.

///

///

 

Case 2:04-cv-01896-MCE -DAD Document 28 Filed 11/08/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Failure to comply with this order may be grounds for the

imposition of sanctions on any and all counsel as well as any

party or parties who cause non-compliance with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 4, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01896-MCE -DAD Document 28 Filed 11/08/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 60866.

#### D. P. Harris Hdw. & Mfg. Co., Inc., and American Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 213779-K (New York).

*541Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the prop cycle stands in question are not necessary or essential to the efficient operation of a bicycle and that said prop cycle stands are bicycle accessories, wholly or in chief value of base metal, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.