alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 19
- 00856
- CR

Curtis Strahan, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 264TH DISTR ICT COURT OF BELL CO UNTY NO. 77106, THE HONOR ABLE PAUL L. LEPAK, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R A N D M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CUR IA M

Appellant Curtis Strahan pleaded guil ty to the offense of ass a ult of a public

servant , s ee Tex. P enal Code § 22.0 1 (b) (1) , and the trial court placed him on deferred adjudication
communi ty supervision

. T he St a te sub sequently filed a m otion to proceed with an adjudication of guilt. After Strahan pleaded “ true ” to the allegations in the motion to adjudicate , the trial court adjudicated him gu il ty and se ntence d him to five year s ’ imprisonment. Strahan has filed a

not i c e of appeal from the trial court ’ s judgment adjudicating guilt.

The rules of appellate procedure require that a trial court enter a certification of
the defendant ’ s right o f appeal “ each time it enters a judgment of guilt or other appe alable
order. ” S e e Tex. R. A pp. P. 25.2(a)(2). A defendant may appeal from a judgment adjudicating guilt. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42. 0 2

. As a result, a trial court is required to enter a written
certification of a defendant ’ s right of appeal from the jud g m ent adjudicating guilt

.2 The trial court ’ s certification in this case states that this is a plea

- bargain case and the defendant has no right of appeal. A plea

- bargain case is define d as one in which a defendant ’ s plea was guilty or nolo contendere a nd t he puni shmen t did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecu tor and agreed to by the defendant. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Here, Str ahan did not plead guil ty or nolo contende re. I nstead, he pleaded true to allegations in
the State ’ s motion t o adjudi cate

. See Hargesheimer v. State , 182 S.W.3d 906, 909

- 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (holding that case in which defendant pleads true in motion to adju dicate is not considered plea

- bargain case under rule 25.2(a )( 2 ) ); Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 6 1 3 (Tex.
Crim. A pp. 2005) (noting that rule 25.2(a)(2) specifically limits right to appeal plea bargains and

“ refers only to plea bargain w ith regard to guilty pleas, not pleas o f true on revocation motion s ” ).

Considering the apparent discrepan cy betwee n t he certificati on and the record, we
abate the appeal and remand the c ause to the trial court for entry of an amended certification addressing S trahan ’ s right of appeal from the judgment adjudicating guilt. See Dears , 154 S.W.3d at 614 ( con clud ing that a p p ellate co urt m ay examine certification for defe ctiveness and, when

approp riate, use rules 37.1 and 34.5 (c) of the rules o f appellate procedure to obtain another certification). Once entered, the certification shall be included in a supplementa l record a n d filed
with th is Court no later than May 8 , 2020. See Te x. R. App. P. 34.5 (c) (2)

.

It is ordere d on March 25, 2020.

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, an d Kelly
Abated and Remanded
Fil ed: March 25, 2020
Do Not P ublish
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 6 (Thursday, January 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 1339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-447]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
National Institutes of Health


National Center for Research Resources; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
National Center for Research Resources Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) 
meeting:

    Name of SEP: Biomedical Research Technology (Telephone 
Conference Call).
    Date: January 30, 1997.
    Time: 2:00 p.m.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, MSC 
7965, Room 6018, Bethesda, MD 20892-7965.
    Contact Person: Dr. Sharon Moss, Scientific Review 
Administrator, 6705 Rockledge Drive, MSC 7965, Room 6018, Bethesda, 
MD 20892-7965, (301) 435-0822.
    Purpose/Agenda: To evaluate and review contract proposals.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
above meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations 
imposed by the review and funding cycle.
    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.371, 
Biomedical Research Technology, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 3, 1997.
Paula N. Hayes,
Acting Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-447 Filed 1-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00340-CV

VETMOVES, MOVES TEXAS, PLLC,

AND DR. ROBYN READ, Appellants

V.

LONE STAR VETERINARIAN MOBILE 

SURGICAL SPECIALISTS, PC AND 

CHARISSE DAVIDSON, Appellees

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 2

of Denton County (CV-2019-01801)

April 16, 2020

Opinion by Justice Wallach

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s order. It is ordered that the trial court’s order denying 

Appellants’ motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellants VetMoves, Moves Texas, PLLC, and Dr. 

Robyn Read shall jointly and severally pay all of the costs of this appeal, for which let 

execution issue.
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Mike Wallach___________________

 Justice Mike Wallach
CRYSTAL RENEE JOLESCH, n/k/a

Crystal Renee McBride

,

Appellant,

v.

ANDREW LAWRENCE

BUSCHBACH, STATE OF FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT,

Appellees.

__________________ _ ____________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF A PPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED.

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 5842

Opinion filed October 15, 2015.

An ap peal from an order of the Department of Revenue Child Support

E nforcement Program.

David A. Carroll, Pensacola , for Appellant.

Sherry Anita Toothman, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Revenue,

Tallahassee ; Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Toni C. Bernstein, Senior

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee s

.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellee’s concession of error, the final

administrative support order on appeal in this case is VACATED, and this cause is2 hereby REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with the conces sion of

error.

BENTON, OSTERHAUS, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 67877]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33922]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. 97N-0509]


Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc.; Withdrawal of Approval of NADA

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is withdrawing approval 
of a new animal drug application (NADA) held by Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. 
The NADA provides for use of chlortetracycline Type A medicated article 
to make Type B or Type C medicated feeds. The sponsor requested the 
withdrawal of approval because the animal drug product is no longer 
manufactured or marketed.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 9, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dianne T. McRae, Center for Veterinary 
Medicine (HFV-102), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., 
Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-0212.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., 340 Kingsland St., 
Nutley, NJ 07110-1199, is the sponsor of NADA 100-903 that provides for 
use of chlortetracycline Type A medicated articles to make Tpye B or 
Type C medicated feeds. The animal drug product had been subject to 
review under the National Academy of Sciences/National Research 
Council, Drug Efficacy Study Implementation Program, and it was 
currently subject to requirements for finalization under that program. 
By letter of August 20, 1997, the sponsor requested withdrawal of 
approval of the NADA because the animal drug product is no longer 
manufactured or marketed.
    Therefore, under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food 
and Drugs (21 CFR 5.10) and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary 
Medicine (21 CFR 5.48), and in accordance with Sec. 514.115 Withdrawal 
of approval of applications (21 CFR 514.115), notice is given that 
approval of NADA 100-903 and all supplements and amendments thereto is 
hereby withdrawn, effective January 9, 1998.
    This product had not been the subject of a regulation published 
under section 512 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
U.S.C. 360b). Therefore, an amendment to the animal drug regulations to 
reflect the withdrawal of approval is not required.

    Dated: December 19, 1997.
Stephen F. Sundlof,
Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. 97-33922 Filed 12-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
#### SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a railroad corporation, Appellant, v. Andrew J. BARKSDALE, Jr., Appellee.

No. 71-162.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 26, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Bert L. FRAZIER v. J. S. COBB and Albert Creely.

No. 47185.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

June 25, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 24, 1973.

Lumpkin, Holland & Ray, Robert K. Upchurch, Tupelo, Charles W. Pickering, Laurel, for appellant.

Riley, Davidson & Weir, Tupelo, for ap-pellees.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Lee County; J. D. Doty, Chancellor.

Before RODGERS, P. J., and INZER, ROBERTSON, WALKER and BROOM, JJ-

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

QUENTIN INGRAM,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 162 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 1st day of October, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0024 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MATTHEW ANDREW SOTTO,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including April 12 , 2024 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 6 2024

03/06/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0024
MINING LEASE  HC CLAIMS
  RECITALS
  Claim Name
     
     County Book/Page
     
     BLM NumberHC 1-20
     
     
     
     827826-827845HC 21-50
     
     
     
     838667-838696HC 51-99
     
     407/296-344
     
     892577-892625HC 100-187
     
     
     
     909042-969129HC 196-197
     
     
     
     1909130-909131
  -1-


SECTION ONELease Term and
Royalties
 Term
of Lease.
 Lease
Payments.
 -2-


Anniversary of Effective Date of Agreement
     
     Annual Lease PaymentYears 1 through 4
     
     $10,000.00Years 5 through 9
     
     $20,000.00Years 10 and all years thereafter
     
     $32,500.00
  Production
Royalties. greater
 -3-


-4-


Specimen
Gold.
 -5-


Option
to Purchase Gold Royalty Interest.
 Average Price of Gold for Preceding 30 Days
     
     Price Per Royalty Point$300.00 per ounce and lower
     
     $2,000,000.00$300.01 to 400.00 per ounce
     
     $2,500,000.00$400.01 to 500.00 per ounce
     
     $3,000,000.00$500.01 to 600.00 per ounce
     
     $4,000,000.00$600.01 to 700.00 per ounce
     
     $5,000,000.00$700.01 to 800.00 per ounce
     
     $6,000,000.00$800.01 to 900.00 per ounce
     
     $7,000.,000.00
 Price per Royalty Point
 Price per Royalty Point
  -6-


Area
of Interest.
 Delivery
of Data.
 SECTION TWOMining Operations
 Right
to Explore, Develop and Mine.
 -7-


Conduct
of Work.
 Liability.
 Liens
 -8-


Installation
of Equipment.
 Acquisition
of Permits.
 Commingling
of Ore.
 -9-


Drill
Logs, Assays, and Maps.
 SECTION THREE
Inspection by Owner
 Inspection
of Property.
 Inspection
of Accounts.
 -10-


SECTION FOURTaxes
  SECTION FIVE
Maintenance of Claims
 Claim
Maintenance Fees.
 -11-


Assessment
Work.
 Relocation,
Amendment, and Patent.
 Mineral
Leasing.
 -12-


SECTION SIXTermination
and Default
 Termination.
 Default.
 Obligations
Following Termination.
 -13-


SECTION SEVENNotices
and Payments
 Notices.
 TO OWNER:
     KM Exploration Ltd
109 Fir Street
Elko, Nevada 89801-3023KM Exploration LtdP.O. Box 2619Fernely, Nevada 89808TO LESSEE:
     Gold Run Inc.
c/o Osprey Capital
55 University Avenue
Toronto, Ontario -14-


WITH A COPY TO:
     Berns & Berns
767 Third Avenue
23rd Floor
New York, New York 10017
Fax: (212) 332-3315 Payments.
 Name
     
     Percentage of PaymentDavid C. Mathewson
     
     50%David C. Knight
     
     50%
 SECTION EIGHTAssignment
  -15-


SECTION NINEWarranty
of Title
 Warrant.
 Examination
of Title Documents.
 -16-


No
Liability for Loss of Claims.
 SECTION TENForce
Majeure
 Suspension
of Obligations.
 -17-


Definition
of Force Majeure.
 Economic
Force Majeure.
 SECTION ELEVEN
Miscellaneous Provisions
 Binding
Effect.
 -18-


Applicable
Law.
 Entire
Agreement.
 Recording
Memorandum of Agreement.
 Void
or Invalid Provisions.
 -19-


Time
of the Essence.
 Confidentiality.
 No
Partnership.
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF,
 KM
EXPLORATION LTD., a NevadaLimited Liability CompanyBy:
     /s/ David C. MathewsonDAVID C. MATHEWSON, ManagerBy:
     /s/ David C. KnightDAVID C. KNIGHT, Manager
 GOLD RUN INC.By:
     /s/ [ILLEGIBLE]CEO, Director
 -20-
## **Exhibit 32.2**

## ** **

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection withthe Annual Report of Benchmark Electronics, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the year ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Donald F. Adam, ChiefFinancial 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:

 
| (3)    | The Report fully  complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                      |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                   |
| (4)    | The information  contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the  financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

 

 
|   |   |   |   |   |   | By:                     |   /s/ Donald F. Adam |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------|---------------------------|
|   |   |   |   |   |   | Donald F. Adam          |
|   |   |   |   |   |   | Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   |   |   |   |   | February 27, 2008  |

 

----
255 La. 155

#### Frances LUQUETTE v. Mervine E. FLOYD.

No. 50309.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1970.

In re: Mervine E. Floyd applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Acadia.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in its judgment.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 302(a) CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Joel N. Waller, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 2) of The Wet Seal, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrantand have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) Designed such internal control our financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability offinancial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; 

 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: June 17, 2005
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Jackson Henry SMITH, Petitioner, v. Royal UNTREINER, Sheriff, Escambia County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 41157.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 19, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 246 So.2d 158.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

ERVIN and DEKLE, JJ., dissent.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 50604

MAGDALENA EUBANK,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

LOCKHART INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western Dist rict of Texas
USDC No. 1:15

- CV

- 1019

Before REAVLEY, GRAVES, and COSTA , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

This is an appeal of the district court’s grant of motion s to compel

, for

sanctions

, and for summary judgment in favor of Lockhart Independent School

District in a disability discrimination and retaliation action. After

consideration of the briefs, record and applicable law in this matter, we affirm

for essentially the reasons set out by the district court.

AFFIRMED

.

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 13, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-50604 Document: 00514596609 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/13/2018
#### Jules SOKOLOFF, Appellant, v. CORINTO STEAMSHIP COMPANY, a Liberian corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-161.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Aug. 5, 1969.

*555Shorenstein & Lewis and Richard C. Lewis, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Shutts & Bowen and Robert C. Som-merville, Miami, for appellee.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, defendant in the trial court, seeks review of an adverse summary judgment in an action to collect on a promissory note. He urges as points on appeal a breach of oral warranties and a failure of consideration for the execution of the promissory note. We find no error in the judgment here under review.

The four written agreements involved in the transaction out of which the promissory note arose, indicate that a vessel was sold “as is, where is”, which clearly excluded any oral representation or warranties as to the performance capabilities of the vessel. Yanish v. Fernandez, 156 Colo. 225, 397 P.2d 881; Findley v. Downing Motors, Inc., 79 Ga.App. 682, 54 S.E.2d 716; Holbrook v. Capital Automobile Company, 111 Ga.App. 601, 142 S.E.2d 288. No proper issue was raised as to the failure of consideration; no specific affirmative defense was pleaded and, without such, this matter is not properly raised as a point on appeal. See: Biro v. Geiser, Fla.1967, 199 So.2d 461; Light v. King, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 398; Accord Jones v. Life Insurance Company of Florida, Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 889.

Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final summary judgment here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### In the Matter of Berwick LAGARDE, Jr.

No. 61613.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 24, 1978.

In re: Dianne and Berwick Lagarde, applying for supervisory writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Parish of Orleans.

Granted — Appeal reinstated without bond. *In re Jackson,*La., 294 So.2d 517; *In re Curley,*La.App., 287 So.2d 558; *In re Salmon,*La.App., 318 So.2d 897.
exhibit415newell2013exte







   #4842-7609-4486v3   To: The Lenders and the Company   under the Credit Agreement   referred to below      Re:  Newell Rubbermaid Inc.    $800,000,000 Credit Agreement dated as of December 2, 2011      Reference is made to the Credit Agreement dated as of December 2, 2011 among   Newell Rubbermaid Inc. (the “Company”), the Subsidiary Borrowers party thereto, the Lenders   party thereto from time to time and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as administrative agent for the   Lenders (as amended, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Credit   Agreement”).  Terms not otherwise defined herein are used herein with the same meanings as   such terms are used in the Credit Agreement.      We are pleased to advise you that we have received the documents required under   Section 2.22(e) of the Credit Agreement from the Company and that, accordingly, the extension   of the current Maturity Date to December 2, 2018 pursuant to Section 2.22 of the Credit   Agreement has become effective with respect to all of the Lenders as of December 2, 2013.      JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,   as Administrative Agent