alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
BEFOR E TH E DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N WASHINGTON , D . C . 

### --PARTMEN TO F

. . vvSPORTATIO N OPERMION S '.L I 'O 

## 0 :' H- 8 

## P ? : O

U

Motio no f AMERICANAIRLINES , INC . fo r confidentia l treatmen t unde r Rul e 1 2 (Form41 , Schedul e B-7 ) DOT-OST-1996-120 3

MOTIO NO F AMERICANAIRLINES , INC . FO R CONFIDENTIA L TREATMEN T UNDE RRUL E 1 2

Communication s wit hrespec t t o thi s documen t shoul d b e sen t to ; VIRAS B VAHID I Senio r Vic e Presiden t - Plannin g America nAirlines , Inc . P.O . Bo x619616 , M D 562 8 DF WAirport , Texa s 7526 1 WILLIAMK . RIS , JR . Senio r Vic e Presiden t - Governmen t Affair s /AmericanAirlines , Inc . 110 1 17t hStreet , N.W . Suit e 60 0 Washington , D.C . 2003 6 CAR L B . NELSON , JR . Associat e Genera l Counse l America nAirlines , Inc . 110 1 17t hStreet , N.W . Suit e 60 0 Washington , D.C . 2003 6 (202 ) 496-564 7 carl . nelson(3a a . co m(email ) Novembe r 10 , 201 0BEFOR E TH E DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N WASHINGTON , D . C .

Motio no f AMERICANAIRLINES , INC . fo r confidentia l treatmen t unde r Rul e 1 2 (Form

41 , Schedul e B-7 ) DOT-OST-1996-120 3

MOTIO NO F AMERICANAIRLINES , INC . FO R CONFIDENTIA L TREATMEN T UNDE RRUL E 1 2 7\mericanAirlines , Inc. , unde r 1 4 CF R302.12 , hereby move s tha t th e enclose d For m41 , Schedul e B- 7 fo r 3Q1 0 b e accorde d confidentia l treatmen t and b e withhel d fro mpubli c disclosure . Th e informatio nfo r whic hconfidentia l treatmen t i s requeste d pertain s t o American' s airfram e an d aircraf t engin e acquisition s and retirements . A s provide d i nRul e 12 , thi s informatio ni s i na seale d envelop e marke d "Confidentia l Treatmen t Requeste d Unde r Rul e 12. "

O nJun e 5 , 1995 , bylette r o f Jame s W . Mitchell , Director , Offic e o f Airlin e Statistics , th e Departmen t grante d confidentia l treatmen t fo r a 10-yea r perio d t o simila r dat a file d b yAmerican . Fo r th e reason s state d i nMr . Mitchell' s letter , th e Departmen t shoul d als o gran t confidentia l treatmen t t o th e dat a submitte d herewith .- 2 -

WHEREFORE , America nmove s tha t th e schedul e submitte d unde r sea l wit hthi s motio nb e withhel d fro mpubli c disclosur e unde r Rul e 1 2 fo r a perio d o f 1 0 years . Respectfull ysubmitted . 

# Gd-^ M

9K J CAR L B . NELSON , JR . Associat e Genera l Counse l America nAirlines , Inc . Novembe r 10 , 201 0
No. 53604.

protests 99113-K, etc. (New York).

#### “21” Brands, Inc. *v.*United States,

*182Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was; sustained.
No. 54718.

#### American Dyewood Company *v.*United States,

protests 155178-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

When the case was called for trial the examiner who passed the instant merchandise testified that its chief use is as a stain and that it is not a pigment. Counsel for the defendant conceded that as to the soluble Van Dyke Brown here involved “there is merit to the plaintiff’s case.” Upon the record presented the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

ANGEL L. ARBOLAY, § 

 § No. 194, 2020 

 Defendant Below, § 

Appellant, § 

§ Court Below−Superior Court 

 v. § of the State of Delaware 

 § 

STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 1808009995(N) 

 § 

Plaintiff Below, § 

Appellee. § 

 Submitted: March 17, 2021 

 Decided: March 24, 2021 

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, 

Justices. 

ORDER 

 This 24th day of March, 2021, after careful consideration of the parties’ briefs 

and the record on appeal, we find it evident that the judgment of the Superior Court 

should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons stated in its order dated May 

28, 2020. 

 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the 

Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 

BY THE COURT: 

 

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Chief Justice
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 16-615V 

Filed: July 20, 2016 

UNPUBLISHED 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

GILMORE WRIGHT, II, * 

 * 

 Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; 

v. * Influenza (“Flu”); Shoulder Injury 

 * Related to Vaccine Administration 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (“SIRVA”); Special Processing Unit 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“SPU”) 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

 * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Paul Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner. 

Voris Johnson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master: 

 On May 25, 2016, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2 (the “Vaccine 

Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered injuries including left rotator cuff syndrome as 

a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered in his left deltoid on November 7, 

2014. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office 

of Special Masters. 

On July 18, 2016, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she concedes 

that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report 

at 1. Specifically, respondent agrees that petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with a 

shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Id. at 3. Respondent 

further agrees that petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under 

the Vaccine Act. Id.

 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with 

the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to 

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits 

within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012). 
2

 In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the 

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Chief Special Master
No. 58085.

protest 205685-K (New York).

#### Kaufman & Vinson Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation that the merchandise described on the invoice as “White bristle artists brushes No. 604” consists of hair pencils as provided for in paragraph 1506, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained as to said merchandise.
No. 51038.

#### Protests 42020-K, etc., of De Luxe Saddlery Co. (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist of leather girths and stirrup leathers of the same kind in all material *263respects as exhibits 2, 3, 4, and illustrative exhibit 5 in *Little Joe Wiesenfeld Co.*v. *United States*(10 Cust. Ct. 101, C. D. 731). In accordance therewith the claim at 15 percent under paragraph 1530 (f), as modified by T. D. 49753, was sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 55 (Thursday, March 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5222]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Buffalo District Advisory Council; Notice of Federal Advisory 
Committee Management Meeting

    The U.S. Small Business Administration Buffalo District Advisory 
Council located in the geographical area of Buffalo, New York, will 
hold a public Federal advisory meeting on Wednesday, April 18, 2007, 
starting at 10 a.m. EST.
    The meeting will take place at the SBA Disaster Assistance Customer 
Service Center, located at 130 S. Elmwood Avenue, 5th Floor, Buffalo, 
New York.
    The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the following topics: (1) 
FY 2007 Mid-year report; (2) SBA Program updates; (3) SBA's Military 
Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan (MREIDL); (4) Disaster 
Assistance Customer Service Center Tour and Update; (5) District Small 
Business Week; (6) District SBA Business Matchmaking, Awards Luncheon & 
Expo; (7) Roundtable Discussion on Small Business Issues.
    Anyone wishing to make an oral presentation to the Board must 
contact Franklin J. Sciortino, District Director, Buffalo District 
Office, in writing by letter or fax no later than Friday, March 30, 
2007, in order to be put on the agenda. Franklin J. Sciortino, District 
Director, Buffalo District Office, U.S. Small Business Administration, 
Niagara Center, 540 Niagara Center, 130 S. Elmwood Avenue, Buffalo, New 
York 14202; telephone (716) 551-4301 or fax (716) 551-4418.

Matthew Teague,
Committee Management Officer.
 [FR Doc. E7-5222 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp. *v.*United States

No. 6293.

Entry No. 729780, etc.

Invoices dated Belleek, Ireland, November 6, 1941, etc.

Certified November 7, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., December 16, 1941, etc.

(Decided July 17, 1946)

*Benjamin A. Levett*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Keefe, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the merchandise consisting of earthenware and chinaware and the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed in the attached schedule are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and issues decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*Suit No. 4513, C. A. D. 334, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the appraised value of the merchandise consisting of earthenware and chinaware involved in each of the cases enumerated in the attached schedule, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> *260It is further stipulated and agreed that these cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the earthenware and chinaware here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases. Insofar as the appeals relate to all other merchandise they are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 41803.

#### Protests 790184-G (A), etc., of Cacciola Bros. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 40880 it was held that .the paraffin coating and twine on the outside of the cheese in question should not have been included in the dutiable weight.
#### DAVID PRESENT, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. THE UNITED STATES LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Argued March 18, 1968

Decided April 4, 1968.

*Mr. Samuel H. Nelson*argued the cause for appellant *{Mr. Robert Scherling,*attorney).

*Mr. Bertram M. Light, Jr.,*argued the cause for respondent *{Messrs. Toner, Vanderbilt, Michels and Light,*attorneys) .

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Allcorn in the Law Division.

*For affirmance*— Chief Justice Weiftraub and Justices Jacobs, Frafcis, Proctor, Hall, Schettifo and Hafemaf—-7.

*For reversal*— None.
```

                                                                      EXHIBIT 15

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report, dated
January 30, 2007, on the consolidated financial statements of Metalink Ltd. (the
"Company") for the year ended December 31, 2006 into the Registration Statements
on Form S-8, No. 333-121901, No. 333-12064, 333-88172 and 333-112755, and on
Form F-3 No. 333-104147, and No. 333-13806, included in this Annual Report on
form 20-F of the Company.

By: /s/ Brightman Almagor & Co.
-----------------------------------

BRIGHTMAN ALMAGOR & CO
Certified Public Accountants
A member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Tel Aviv, Israel
May 29, 2007
```
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 7 D0 04 4 . LEMORI A MOSES v . DORA BELL MOSES.

Lem o ri a M o s es an d Do ra Bel l M o s es were d i v orced i n 2 0 1 5

. Aft er t h e

s u p eri o r co u rt en t ered i t s fi n al ju d g m en t i n t h e d i vo rce act i o n , L em o ri a M o s es fi l ed

an ex t rao rd i n ary m o t i o n f o r n ew t ri al

. Th e s u p eri o r co u rt d en i ed t h e m o t i o n , an d
Lem o ri a M o s es fi l ed an ap p li cat i o n fo r d i scret i o n ary ap peal wi t h t h i s Co u rt

. Th e Geo rg i a Su p rem e Co u rt h as a p p e l l a te ju ri s d i ct i on o v er al l di v o rce an d
al i m o n y cas es , i n cl ud i n g t h o se cas es an ci l l ary t o t h e d i vo rc e p r o c eed i n g s

. See Ga.
Co n s t

. o f 1 9 8 3
, Art

. VI, Sec. V I, Par. III (6 ); Mo r r i s v. Mo r ri s , 2 8 4 Ga. 7 4 8
, 7 5 0 (2 ) (6 7 0 SE2 d 8 4 ) (2 0 0 8 ); s ee al s o To d d v. To d d
, 2 8 7 Ga. 2 5 0 , 2 5 1-2 5 2 (1 ) (7 0 3 SE2 d
5 9 7 ) (2 0 1 0 ). Becau s e th e u n d erl y i n g s u b ject m at t er o f t h i s ap p l i cat i o n i s d i v o rce, i t
i s h ereb y TRANSFERRED t o t h e Su p rem e Co u rt fo r d i s p o s i t i o n

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 08/26/2016 August 26, 2016
#### Alexandra deVoil, Respondent, v Lisa Wallace, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 384]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated September 14, 1994, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

"While negligence cases do not generally lend themselves to resolution by motion for summary judgment, such a motion will be granted where, as here, the facts clearly point to the negligence of one party without any fault or culpable conduct by the other party” *(Morowitz v Naughton,*150 AD2d 536, 537). Here, the defendant was unquestionably responsible for causing the accident while the plaintiff was free from culpable conduct. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability *(see, Cummins v Rose,*185 AD2d 839).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not err in granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment prior to the taking of the plaintiffs deposition since the plaintiff stated in an affidavit that she had no recollection of the accident. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
EX-10.3(a)



 Exhibit 10.3(a) 

June 1, 2014 
 AAA Capital Management Advisors, Ltd. 

1300 Post Oak Blvd. #350 
 Houston, Texas 77056 

Attention: Mr. Anthony Annunziato 
  

	 	Re:	Management Agreement Renewals 

 Dear Mr. Annunziato: 

We are writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to which reference is made below (the “Management
Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2015 and all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged. 
  

	 	•	 	AAA Capital Energy Fund L.P. 

  

	 	•	 	AAA Capital Energy Fund L.P. II 

  

	 	•	 	AAA Master Fund LLC 

  

	 	•	 	Orion Futures Fund L.P. 

  

	 	•	 	Institutional Futures Portfolio L.P. 

  

	 	•	 	Global Futures Fund LTD. 

  

	 	•	 	AAA ARC Feeder Fund L.P. 

  

	 	•	 	MSMF Custom Solutions Fund L.P. 

 Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this
letter and returning it to the attention of Mrs. Alice Lonero at the address above or fax to 212-296-6868. If you have any questions I can be reached at 212-296-1304. 

Very truly yours, 
  

			
	CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC
		
	By:		/s/ Alice Lonero
			Alice Lonero
			Chief Financial Officer

  

			
	AAA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT ADVISORS, LTD.
		
	By:		/s/ Anthony Annunziato


			
	Print Name:		Anthony A. Annunziato
	AL/sr
#### TADEUSZ OSZMANSKI, AMENDED TO READ VICTORIA OSZMANSKI, WIDOW AND SOLE DEPENDANT OF TADEUSZ OSZMANSKI, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. BERGEN POINT BRASS FOUNDRY, INC., RESPONDENT-PETITIONER.

See same case below: 95 *N. J. Super.*92.

*Mr. Isidor Kalisch*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Balk, Jacobs, Goldberger & Mandell*for the respondent.

January 16, 1968.

Denied.
No. 47414.

#### Protests 849952-G, etc., of Bailey, Green & Elger et al. (New York)

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

January 4, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132373 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: 132373 

 COA: 268674 

Wayne CC: 02-006463-01

ROLAND ANTHONY LONGGREAR,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 15, 2006 

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

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

p1218 

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. 

January 4, 2007 

 Clerk
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Bureau of Customs and Border Protection 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. 

# ACTION:

Announcement of the quota quantity of tuna in airtight containers for Calendar Year 2007. 

# SUMMARY:

Each year the tariff-rate quota for tuna described in subheading 1604.14.22, HTSUS, is based on the apparent United States consumption of tuna in airtight containers during the preceding Calendar Year. This document sets forth the tariff-rate quota for Calendar Year 2007. 

# DATES:

*Effective Dates:*                         The 2007 tariff-rate quota is applicable to tuna entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption during the period January 1, through December 31, 2007.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Headquarters Quota Branch, Textile Enforcement and Operations Division, Trade Policy and Programs, Office of International Trade, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Washington, DC 20229, (202) 344-2650. 

## Background 

It has been determined that 18,678,022 kilograms of tuna in air-tight containers may be entered and withdrawn from warehouse for consumption during the Calendar Year 2007, at the rate of 6 percent ad valorem under subheading 1604.14.22, HTSUS. Any such tuna which is entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption during the current calendar year in excess of this quota will be dutiable at the rate of 12.5 percent ad valorem under subheading 1604.14.30 HTSUS. 

Dated: March 15, 2007. 

Daniel Baldwin, 

Assistant Commissioner, Office of International Trade.

 [FR Doc. E7-5101 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
**Exhibit 23**

 

We hereby consent tothe incorporation by reference in Fidelity D&D Bancorp, Inc.’s AnnualReport on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission of ourreport dated February 3, 2006 relating to the consolidated financial statementsof Fidelity D&D Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiary as of December 31, 2005 and2004, and for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,2005, which report appears in the Registrant’s Annual Report to Shareholdersfor the year ended December 31,2005.

 

Scranton, Pennsylvania

March 15,2006

 

 

 

 

83

----
EX-10.14(B)



 Exhibit 10.14(b) 
 June 1, 2014 
 Secor Capital Advisors L.P. 

One Penn Plaza – Suite 4625 
 New York, New
York 10119 
 Attention: Mr. Robert Aurigema 
  

	 	Re:	Management Agreement Renewal 

 Dear Mr.
Aurigema: 
 We are writing with respect to your management agreement concerning the commodity pool to which reference is made below (the
“Management Agreement”). We are extending the term of the Management Agreement through June 30, 2015 and all other provisions of the Management Agreement will remain unchanged. 

 

	 	•	 	 Secor Master Fund L.P. 



	 	•	 	 Emerging CTA Portfolio L.P. 



Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it to the attention of Mrs. Alice Lonero at the address
above or fax to 212-296-6868. If you have any questions I can be reached at 212-296-1304. 
 Very truly yours, 

 

			
	CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC
		
	By:	 	/s/ Alice Lonero
		 	Alice Lonero
		 	Chief Financial Officer
	
	SECOR CAPITAL ADVISORS L.P.
		
	By:            	 	/s/ Raymond Iwanowski
		
	 Print Name:
	 	Raymond Iwanowski
		
	AL/sr