alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.11





 Exhibit 10.11 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO 

FORWARD PURCHASE AGREEMENT 

This first amendment (the “Amendment”) to that certain Forward Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”) entered
into as of September 23, 2020, among TPG Pace Tech Opportunities Corp., a Cayman Islands exempted limited company (the “Company”), and other third parties (each, a “Purchaser”, and collectively, the
“Purchasers”), is entered into as of October 6, 2020, pursuant to Section 9(m) of the Agreement. Capitalized terms that are used herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement. In consideration of the
mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the Company and the Purchaser hereby agree as follow: 
 Section 1(a)(iv) shall be
amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 
 “(iv) At the Forward Closing, the Company shall also issue to each Purchaser, on a
private placement basis, upon payment of the Forward Purchase Price, an additional number of Class A Shares, for no cash consideration, equal to one-tenth of the number of Forward Purchase Shares
purchased by each such Purchaser (the “Additional Shares” and, together with the Forward Purchase Securities, the “Securities”).” 

Upon and after the effectiveness of this Amendment, each reference in the Agreement to “this Agreement”, “hereunder”,
“hereof” or words of like import referring to the Agreement shall mean and be a reference to the Agreement as modified and amended hereby. 

This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, all of which when taken together shall be considered one and the same agreement
and shall become effective when counterparts have been signed by each party and delivered to the other party, it being understood that both parties need not sign the same counterpart. In the event that any signature is delivered by facsimile
transmission or any other form of electronic delivery, such signature shall create a valid and binding obligation of the party executing (or on whose behalf such signature is executed) with the same force and effect as if such signature page were an
original thereof. 
 This Amendment, the entire relationships of the parties hereto, and any litigation between the parties (whether
grounded in contract, tort, statute, law or equity) shall be governed by, construed in accordance with, and interpreted pursuant to the laws of the State of New York, without giving effect to its choice of laws principles. 

[Signature Page Follows] 












 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement to be
effective as of the date first set forth above. 
  

			
	PURCHASER:
	
	[●]
		
	By:	 	
                     
            

		 	Name:
		 	Title:
	
	Address for Notices:
	
	E-mail:
	
	COMPANY:
	
	TPG PACE TECH OPPORTUNITIES CORP.
		
	By:	 	
                     
            

		 	Name:
		 	Title:


 [Signature Page to Amendment No. 1 to Forward Purchase Agreement]
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

**Subsidiaries of Registrant**

 

The Company or the registrant has eight wholly-owned subsidiaries, seven of which are corporations organized under the laws of the State of New Hampshire:Unitil Energy Systems, Inc., Northern Utilities, Inc., Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc., Unitil Power Corp., Unitil Realty Corp., Unitil Resources, Inc. and Unitil Service Corp. The eighth, Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company, is organizedunder the laws of the State of Massachusetts. Usource, Inc., which is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Unitil Resources, Inc. Usource, Inc. is the sole member of Usource L.L.C., whichis a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware.
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, 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 those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial 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 the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation;(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
    Dated: August 14, 2008
    By:
    /s/ David E. OlsonDavid E. OlsonChief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President,
Secretary and Treasurer (Principal Financial and
Accounting Officer)
Exhibit 32.1 

 

**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 Preferred Voice, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Mary G. Merritt, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

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

 

/s/ Mary G. Merritt

 

Mary G. Merritt 

Principal Executive Officer 

Principal Financial Officer 

November 14, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the financial statements for the nine months ended 
December 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          25,191
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  734,403
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,000
<INVENTORY>                                    478,916
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,826,227
<PP&E>                                       2,384,269
<DEPRECIATION>                                 162,442
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,692,916
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,795,028
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          252,114
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,121
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,692,916
<SALES>                                      2,452,934
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,452,934
<CGS>                                        3,657,006
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,657,006
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               188,529
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              94,746
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,780,800)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,355
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,791,155)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,344,755)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.57)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2022119EN.01001802.xml

| 14.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 25 November 2021 — A v Finanzamt X

(Case C-713/21)

(2022/C 119/25)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Defendant: Finanzamt X

Questions referred

In relation to the meaning of Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 2006/112/EC, (1) as interpreted in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 10 November 2016, Baštová: (2)

Does the owner of a competition horse training stable provide the horse owner with a single supply, consisting in the stabling and training of horses and the participation of horses in competitions, for consideration even where the horse owner remunerates that supply by assigning half of the claim to prize money to which he or she is entitled in the event of successful participation in a competition?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

(2)  C 432/15 (EU:C:2016:855).

---
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 140 (Friday, July 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 34559]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15429]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers


Notice of Availability of the Draft Feasibility Report and 
Integrated Environmental Impact Statement for the Adams and Denver 
Counties, Colorado General Investigation Study, Adams and Denver 
County, Colorado

AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

ACTION: Notice; extension of public comment deadline.

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

SUMMARY: The comment period for the Notice of Availability of the Draft 
Feasibility Report and Integrated Environmental Impact Statement for 
the Adams and Denver Counties, Colorado General Investigation Study, 
Adams and Denver County, Colorado published in the Federal Register on 
Monday, July 2, 2018, and required comments be postmarked on or before 
August 16, 2018. The Corps is extending the deadline for submitting 
public comments to August 28, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeffrey Bohlken, U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers at (402) 995-2671 or by email at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9dd7f8fbfbeff8e4b3deb3dff2f5f1f6f8f3dde8eefcfef8b3fceff0e4b3f0f4f1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a0eac5c6c6d2c5d98ee38ee2cfc8cccbc5cee0d5d3c1c3c58ec1d2cdd98ecdc9cc">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Draft EIS can be downloaded from 
www.nwo.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Planning/Project-Reports/.

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-15429 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3720-58-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
---

|                                      | Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton
      LLP
|------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------
|                                      | Suite 2000                             
|                                      | National Bank Tower                    
|                                      | 600 De La Gauchetière Street West      
|                                      | Montréal, Quebec H3B 4L8               
|                                      |                                        
|**Consent of Independent Registered** | Telephone: 514-878-2691                
|Public Accounting Firm                | Fax: 514-878-2127                      
|                                      | www.rcgt.com                           

We have issued our report dated November 28, 2012 with respect
to the consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report of Sand
Technology Inc. on Form 20-F/A#2 for the year ended July 31, 2012. We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration
Statements of Sand Technology Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-08538, effective
March 27, 1998 and File No. 333-07462, effective August 20, 1997) and Form F-3
(File No. 333-51014, effective August 18, 2000).

Montréal, Canada March 29, 2013

Partnership of Chartered Professional AccountantsMember of Grant Thornton International Ltd

---
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersignedofficers of Electronic Systems Technology Inc., a Washington corporation (the"Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of such officers' knowledge andbelief, that:The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Form      10-KSB") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 
The information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects,      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ TOM L. KIRCHNER                                                                     /s/ JON CORREIO    Tom L. Kirchner                                                                                 Jon Correio    Chief Executive Officer                                                                     Chief Financial Officer    Date: March 23, 2006                                                                        Date: March 23, 2006
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jammian Crews, Appellant.

[722 NYS2d 204]

—Judgment unani*905mously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [2] [depraved indifference]), attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25 [1] [intentional]), assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [1]), and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 265.01 [2]). County Court properly denied defendant’s request for a missing witness charge. Defendant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the witness would have testified favorably to the prosecution *(see, People v Gonzalez,*68 NY2d 424, 427). The verdict finding defendant guilty of attempted murder in the second degree is not against the weight of the evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495). We further reject defendant’s contention that the court erred in refusing to charge assault in the second degree as a lesser included offense of assault in the first degree. Viewed in the light most favorable to defendant *(see, People v Martin,*59 NY2d 704, 705), the evidence does not support a finding that he committed the lesser but not the greater offense *(see, People v Ford,*62 NY2d 275, 281). Contrary to the contention of defendant, assault in the first degree is not an inclusory concurrent count of attempted murder in the second degree *(see, People v Alford,*251 AD2d 1032, *lv denied*92 NY2d 892). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, DiTullio, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132855 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: 132855 

 COA: 272501 

Kent CC: 04-009089-FC 

RICHARD GERMONES REED, 04-009204-FH 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

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

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0830 

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. 

September 10, 2007 

 Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 710 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 710

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        August 1, 2014.
    Resolved, That during further consideration of the bill (H.R. 5230) making 
supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and 
for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 696:
     (a) the amendments printed in part A of the report of the Committee on 
Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted;
    (b) all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are 
waived; and
    (c) the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final passage without 
intervening motion except (1) one additional hour of debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2.  After passage of H.R. 5230, and on the legislative day of August 1, 
2014, the House shall consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5272) to prohibit 
certain actions with respect to deferred action for aliens not lawfully present 
in the United States, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment printed in part B of the 
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be 
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All 
points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on 
any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
    Sec. 3.  Section 2 of House Resolution 700 is amended to read as follows: 
``Sec. 2. It shall be in order at any time on the legislative day of August 1, 
2014, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules, as 
though under clause 1 of rule XV, relating to a measure addressing missile 
defense of Israel.''.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Moreland vs. Gilliam Adm.

The Probate Court having allowed expenses of administration of the husband’s estate, against the estate of his widow, the Circuit Court properly reversed the' judgment.

No bill of exceptions is necessary to give the Circuit Court jurisdiction, on appeal from the Probate Court, where the error appears upon the record.

*Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court.*

Hon. John J. Clendenin, Circuit Judge.

Bertrand, for the appellant,

contended that the Circuit Court *508had. no jurisdiction, because there was no bill of exceptions setting out the testimony on the trial in the Probate Court: that in *Dempsey vs. Fenno,*(16 *Ark.*491,) it was decided that a bill of exceptions was unnecessary where the record itself presents everything necessary to a full adjudication of the case; but in this case there was testimony, which does not appear upon the record.

Fowler & Stillwell, for the appellee.

Mr. Justice Fairchild

delivered the opinion of the court.

Moreland had been the administrator of Wiley Beasley, and in defending law suits as such administrator, had incurred costs, as he claimed, to the amount of one hundred and seventeen dollars and ninety cents.

Gilliam had become the administrator of Lucy Beasley; whereupon without presentation of the claim to Gilliam, and without notice to him, Moreland presented his petition to the Probate Court of Pulaski county, at its October term 1857, to have the aforementioned sum allowed to him out of the estate of Lucy Beasley, as expenses of the administration of Wiley Beasley’s estate.

The Probate Court sustained the petition, and ordered the allowance to be made.

On a subsequent day, at the same term, Gilliam appeared in the Probate Court, and prayed and obtained an appeal against the allowance to the Circuit Court.

There the judgment of the Probate Court was reversed, and on hearing of the case in the Circuit Court, judgment was rendered against Moreland.

No reason is shown why Lucy Beasley’s estate should be charged with the account presented in Moreland’s petition. We do not see how expenses of administration could be allowed against her estate, but at the instance of its representative, and for moneys paid out in the. course of the administration of that estate.

*509No bill of exceptions was necessary to give the Circuit Court jurisdiction, the error appearing upon the record of the Probate Court. *Dempsey vs. Fenno,*16 *Ark.*493; *Jones vs. Jones,*21 *Ark.*

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.
#### WILLIAM O. REDDEN *vs.*STEWART & TOWNSEND.

The justice’s record ought to show regular adjournments of the cause.

Certiorari to Justice Hall.

Record. “Summons issued 22d March, 1834, on account, demanding $49 99, returnable 29th March, 1834. Then returned, executed personally. Deft, not appearing, judgment by default, now, to wit, this 12th April, 1834. Judgment for plff. $49 99 and $1 84 costs.

Exceptions. First. Because judgment was rendered by the justice by default without first having heard the allegations and proofs of the plff. and without trying the cause. Second. Because the summons was returnable on the 29th of March, and judgment was given by default against the deft, on the.12th of April, and the record does not show any adjournment of the cause.

Judgment reversed.
#### William Ronald HILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. CC-484.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 21, 1977.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and Louis G. Carres, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING GRANTED

PER CURIAM.

On petition for rehearing, appellant’s sentence is vacated, and this cause is remanded to the trial court for an appropriate sentence in accordance with the opinion of the Supreme Court filed August 31, 1977, in Earnest v. State, 851 So.2d 957.

McCORD, C. J., and RAWLS and SMITH, JJ., concur.