alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1


AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE


 


 


THIS AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE (this “Amendment”)
is dated as of the 26th day of October, 2021 and is made by and between FinTech Acquisition Corp. V (“Maker”) and FinTech
Masala, LLC (“Payee”).


 


RECITALS


 


		A.	Maker executed that certain Promissory Note dated September 15, 2021 in the principal sum of up to Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand dollars
($750,000) (the “Note”).



 


		B.	Maker and Payee have agreed to make certain amendments to the Note.



 


		C.	Unless otherwise set forth herein, all other provisions of the Note shall remain in full force and effect.



 


		D.	All capitalized terms not defined in this Amendment will have the meanings given to them in the Note.



 


In consideration of these promises, the mutual covenants contained in this
Amendment and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


 


1.       Section 4 of the Note is
hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:


 


“Intentionally Omitted.”


 


 


 


 


 


 


[SIGNATURES APPEAR ON
FOLLOWING PAGE]


 






     


     


    




 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties
have caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the date first above written.





 





	 	MAKER:
	 	 	 
	 	FINTECH ACQUISITION CORP. V
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ James J. McEntee, III
	 	Name:	James J. McEntee, III
	 	Title:	President
	 	 	 
	 	PAYEE:
	 	 	 
	 	FINTECH MASALA, LLC
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Mehar Jagota
	 	Name:	Mehar Jagota
	 	Title:	Chief Operating Officer
Exhibit 99.2




                            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 of LumaLite  Holdings,  Inc. on Form
10-QSB for the period ending  September  30, 2002, as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Hank  Schumer,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (1)  the Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.



 /s/  Hank Schumer
----------------------------------------------------
Hank Schumer
Chief Financial Officer
November 12, 2002



<PAGE>
# STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STATE OF CONNECTICUT and Ogden Martin Systems 

### ofBrislol, Inc. 

### TRADING AGREEMENT A:-:ID ORDER NO. 8094 MODIFICATION
TRADING AGREEMENT AND ORDER MODJFICATION in the matter ofa Trading Agreement and Order between the Commissioner ofEnvironme01al Protection ("Commissioner") and Ogden Manin Systems ofBristol. 

### Inc. ("Ogden). WHEREAS, the Commissioner and Ogden, having agreed to the terms and conditions set forth in Trading Agreement and Order No. 8094 issued on 

### July 28, 1997, do now, 

### by mutual agreement, modify paragraph 

### B. as follows: I. Change the first date specified in paragraph B. from April 30, 1999 to December 14, 1999 and change the second date specified in paragraph B. from 

### April 30, 1999 to December 14, 1999. All other terms and conditions ofTracting Agreement and Order No. 8094 issued 

### by the Commissioner acting under Sections 22a·6: 22a-171, 22a-174, 22a· 176, 22a· 177 and 22a·1 78 of the Connecticut General Statutes shall remain in effect.



### Initials: ;\ 

## M -{"r

# 'If

# \1 (Printed on**Re~y~led** Paptr) 79 Elm Suet! • HmfOld. CT 06106·5127 hllp:lldep.$111 e.el.U$ An Equal OpP0rlUltHY Employa Dale:

### Ogden Martin Systems ofBristol, Inc. 2 

### TRADING AGREEMENT AND ORDER NO. 8094 MODIFICATION Ogden Martin Systems ofBristol, Inc. hereby consents to the entry ofthis modification to the Trading Agreement and Order without further notice. Ogden Martin Systems 

### ofBristol, Inc. Signature:

# --',-'-""'cQ3....-'A=~""'¥,·"'~=---- Type Name: 

### TEd Hoefler Type Title: 

### V. P. Northeast 

### Region Date:

}\ ur J. 

### Rocque, Jr. ornmissioner Entered as amodification ofan Order ofthe Commissioner ofEnvironmental Protection numbered 

### 8094 this

__

### ...:::l----'-1

__ daY of

# --IjoJ-r-=.><.-

__ 1999.



# ----"

CITY OF BRISTOL LAND RECORDS MAILED CERTIFlED MAIL,

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Certified Document No.
Agenda

Financial Literacy and Education Commission Public Meeting 

February 4, 2016 9:00 am – 11:30 am

U.S. Department of the Treasury – Cash Room

Leading Practices in Post-Secondary Education and Next Steps for Financial Inclusion

Opening Remarks

 Jacob J. Lew, Secretary of the Treasury

 John B. King, Jr., Acting Secretary, US Department of Education

 Richard Cordray, Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

Panel: Leading Practices in Post-Secondary Education

 Bryan Ashton, Assistant Director, Student Life, Student Wellness Center, Ohio State University 

 Betty Habershon, Director of Office of Service-Learning, The Community Financial Center, Prince 

George's Community College

 Jeff Webster, Director of Research, TG (Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corp.)

Moderator: Mark Mitsui, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Colleges, US Department of Education

Next Steps on Financial Inclusion: Report from the US Financial Inclusion Forum

 Melissa Koide, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Consumer Policy, US Department of the Treasury

 Alexia Latortue, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Development Policy, US 

Department of the Treasury

Commission Discussion and Announcements 

Adjourn
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 6249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3348]


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

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
[FEMA-3123-EM]


Rhode Island; Amendment to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency for the State of 
Rhode Island (FEMA-3123-EM), dated November 19, 1996, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 28, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Response and Recovery 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, 
(202) 646-3260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident 
period for this disaster is closed effective November 27, 1996.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.516, Disaster 
Assistance)
Catherine H. Light,
Deputy Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 97-3348 Filed 2-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
EXHIBIT 33.1





REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH SERVICING CRITERIA


FOR ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES





Entergy Texas, Inc. (the “Servicer”), as a party participating in the servicing function under Item 1122 of Regulation AB, hereby reports on its assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria specified in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB, as follows:





(1) The Servicer is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria applicable to it. The servicing criteria specified in the following paragraphs of paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB are not applicable to the Servicer based on the activities it performs with respect to asset-backed securities transactions taken as a whole involving the Servicer and that are backed by the same asset type backing the Senior Secured Transition Bonds: (1)(ii) (outsourcing), (1)(iii) (back-up servicing), (1)(iv) (fidelity bond), 2(iii) (advances or guarantees), (2)(vi) (unissued checks), (4)(iii) (additions, removals or substitutions), 4(v) (records regarding pool assets), (4)(ix) (adjustments to interest rates), (4)(x) (funds held in trust for an obligor), (4)(xi) (payments on behalf of obligors), (4)(xii) (late payment penalties), (4)(xiii) (obligor disbursements), (4)(xv) (external credit enhancement);





(2) The Servicer used the criteria in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria;





(3) The Servicer has determined that it is in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015, which is the period covered by this report on Form 10-K; and





(4) Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the Servicer's assessment of compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015, which is the period covered by this report on Form 10-K.








Date:  March  29, 2016





Entergy Texas, Inc., as servicer





By:  /s/ Alyson M. Mount





Name:  Alyson M. Mount


Title:   Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
#### Callie Mae KING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2456.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 22, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Seminole County; William C. Akridge, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS

HANDDOWN LIST OF JULY 15 , 2014

WESTERN DISTRICT

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM



### ------------------------------------------------------------------

WD76580 Kevin Williams v s. State of Missouri

WD76904 In the Interest of: A.L.S. vs. Juvenile Officer

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM



### ----------------------------------------------------------------

None
EXHIBIT 32 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 Annual Report of Hugoton Royalty Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge: (1)

          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2)

          The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust. Bank of America, N.A., Trustee for Hugoton Royalty Trust February 25, 2009

          By:/s/ Nancy G. WillisNancy G. Willis Vice President
Frequently Asked Questions on the Government Securities Investment Fund

December 15, 2017

1. What is the Government Securities Investment Fund?

The G Fund is a money market defined-contribution retirement fund for Federal employees.

2. How does the debt ceiling affect the G Fund?

The G Fund is invested in special-issue Treasury securities, which count against the debt limit. 

The entire balance matures daily and is ordinarily reinvested. In 1987, Congress granted 

Treasury the statutory authority to suspend reinvestment of all or part of the balance of the G 

Fund when the Secretary determines that the Fund cannot be fully invested without exceeding 

the debt limit.

3. How much headroom will this Treasury action involving the G Fund provide?

As of November 30, there was $223 billion in headroom available. The balance of the G Fund 

can fluctuate for a variety of reasons. Based on recent historical trends, Treasury expects that 

approximately $208 billion is a more accurate estimate of the value of the G Fund when 

projecting how long extraordinary measures may last.

4. What impact will this action have on Federal employees and their retirement benefits?

By law, the G Fund will be made whole once the debt limit is increased. Federal retirees and 

employees will be unaffected by this action.

5. Has Treasury ever suspended reinvestment of all or part of the G Fund before?

Yes, in the past 22 years, Treasury used this extraordinary measure in 1995-96, 2002, 2003, 

2004, 2006, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and early 2017.
#### Vernon MURPHREE v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 45257.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 7, 1969.

J. Robertshaw, Greenville, for appellant.

Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., by G. Garland Lyell, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

ETHRIDGE, Chief Justice:

ON PETITION FOR CORAM NOBIS AND MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND GRANT NEW TRIAL

Vernon Murphree, appellant, was convicted of manslaughter in the Circuit Court of Washington County and has appealed to this Court. His appeal is now pending but will not be reached for consideration and decision until the September 1969 term. In the interim, Murphree has filed a petition in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis, seeking leave to file a motion in the circuit court to vacate his judgment of conviction and to grant him a new trial. The basis of the petition is alleged to be newly discovered evidence, consisting of a report by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to the Chief of Police of Greenville with reference to a lug wrench allegedly used by appellant in the slaying. The report states (a) that chemical tests were positive for the “possible presence of blood,” but the sample on the wrench was insufficient to establish the presence of blood, and (b) that no brain tissue was identified on the exhibit. The petition alleges that the report strongly suggests that the exhibit could not have been used as a homicide weapon.

Appellant has also filed a motion to vacate the judgment and for a new trial, on the basis of this FBI report, which was unknown to counsel for defendant at the *695time of trial. Both the motion and petition allege that defendant was denied the right to a fair trial because the FBI report was not made available to the court, jury or defense counsel.

In the present posture of this case, the petition and the motion are premature. This Court has not yet considered the merits of Murphree’s appeal. It has not studied the record or the briefs, and hence it is unable to appraise at this time the materiality of appellant’s averments in his petition and motion. Their consideration and disposition will therefore be passed and continued until decision of the appeal on the merits. *Cf.*Wetzel v. State, 225 Miss. 450, 477, 76 So.2d 194 (1954) (on petition for writ of error coram nobis); Wetzel v. State, 225 Miss. 450, 76 So.2d 188 (1954) (on the merits).

Petition in nature of writ of error coram nobis and motion to vacate judgment and for new trial continued for consideration of appeal on merits.

All Justices concur.
#### Albert DAVIDONIS and Helen Davidonis, his wife, Appellants, v. THUNDERBIRD MOTEL, a Florida corporation, and Allstate Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. 72-1007.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 21, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary information extracted from the
Form 10-K for the year ended December 26, 1998 and is qualified
in it's entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000862612
<NAME> UNIROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-26-1998
<CASH>                                           5,561
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   59,109
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,809
<INVENTORY>                                    217,579
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               337,475
<PP&E>                                         368,301
<DEPRECIATION>                                 325,044
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,134,416
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          226,608
<BONDS>                                        725,644
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (104,797)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,134,416
<SALES>                                      1,209,649
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,209,649
<CGS>                                          729,051
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,052,805
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (156,754)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,420
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              86,512
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                227,086
<INCOME-TAX>                                    89,777
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            137,309
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (21,651)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   115,658
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 5- 14 04

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Jo se Lui s Go nz al ez ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll lPeti ti on er

v. Lore tt a E. Ly

nc h, At to rn ey

Gene ral of t he Uni te d S ta te s ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll lResp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Sep te m

be r 24 , 21 05 Fil ed : Oct ob er 7 , 20 15 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, COLLOTO N, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.
Mex ic an ci ti zen Jo se Lui s Gon zal ez pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w of an or de r of th e Bo ard of Im

m ig rat io n App eal s di sm is si ng hi s ap p e a l f r o m th e de ci si on of an imm ig rat io n judg e to de ny wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al an d reli ef un de r th e Co nv en ti onAga in st Tort ur e. Afte r care fu l co ns id erat io n, we co nc lu de th at subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce 1 su pp orts th e de ci si on . S e e Dav il ia -Me jia v. Mu ka se y , 53 1 F.3 d 62 4, 62 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). The p et it io n i s d en ie d. Se e 8 th Cir . R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The un ti m el in es s o f th e rel at edasylu m ap pl ic at io n i s n otan is su e b efo re u s. 1 -2

-
Order entered March 2 1 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 01126
- CV BRIGETTA HOMES, LLC D/B/A BEAUTIFUL HOME S BY BRIGETTA

AND BRIGETTA D’OLIVI O , Appellant s

V. ERHARD HERMUS, Appellee On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 16
- 14449



### O RDER By order dated January 15, 2019, we granted the motion to withdraw filed by appellants’
former counsel . Because a bus iness entity may appear in court and be represented only by a licensed attorney, we instructed appellant Brigetta Homes, LLC d/b/a Beautiful Homes by Brigetta to notify this Court by February 14, 2019 of the name, State Bar number, address, and telephone n umber of new counsel . We subsequently extended that deadline to March 18, 2019. A second extension motion has now been filed.
We GRANT the March 19, 2019 motion and EXTEND the time to April 18, 2019

. We caution that further extension requests will be di sfavored and that failure to comply may result in dismissal , without further notice, of Brigetta Homes as an appellant to this appeal

.Appellant Brigetta D’Olivio’s opening brief remains due March 31, 2019.
/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Nuevo Energy Company:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 
33-43329) on Form S-8, registration statement (No. 33-70108) on Form S-8, 
registration statement (No. 333-21063) on Form S-8, registration statement (No. 
333-51211) on Form S-8, registration statement (No. 333-51217 on Form S-8, 
registration statement (No. 333-51231) on Form S-8, and registration statement 
(No. 333-16231) on Form S-3 of Nuevo Energy Company of our report dated March 
25, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Nuevo Energy Company 
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated 
statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows for 
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1998, which report
appears in the December 31, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K of Nuevo Energy 
Company. Our report refers to a change to the successful efforts method of 
accounting for oil and gas properties.



                                        /s/ KPMG LLP

Houston, Texas
March 31, 1999
#### Charles J. CESKY, Sr., Appellant, v. Gladys T. CESKY, Appellee.

No. 69-469.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Oct. 29, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### SUNRISE SHOPPING CENTER, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Leon C. NICKELS, Appellee.

No. 70-102.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 9, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Otis Farrington, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### John MATERA and Gennaro Galtieri, Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 71-12, 71-28 and 71-593.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 6, 1972.

Milton E. Grusmark, Miami Beach, for appellants.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Arnold R. Ginsberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ.

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered in these consolidated appeals on November 2, 1971 (254 So.2d 843) reversing the orders of the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County, Florida, in the above styled causes; and

Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida by its opinion and judgment filed July 12, 1972 (266 So.2d 661) and mandate now lodged in this court, quashed this court’s judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings consistent with the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida;

Now, therefore, It is Ordered that the mandate of this court heretofore issued in this cause on December 20, 1971 is withdrawn, this court’s opinion and judgment filed herein on November 2, 1971 is vacated, the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court, the orders of the Criminal Court of Record appealed from are reinstated and affirmed. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the trial court (Rule 3.16 subd. b, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A.).