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



                                       EXHIBIT 10.9
                                SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
                              INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL LEASE


<PAGE>


            ADDENDUM TO STANDARD INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL SINGLE LEASE
                               AGREEMENT BETWEEN:

                     THE ALLAN AND GEORGIANNA KOLSKY TRUST
                                       AND
                        HYDROGEN BURNER TECHNOLOGY, INC.

The Lessor and Lessee agree to extend the original lease dated March 27, 1996
by one year. The term of the lease extension will cover the period from
April 1, 2000 through March 31, 2001. The rent will increase by 4.5% during
the lease extension. All other terms of the original lease will remain
unchanged and in effect including, two three year options to extend the lease
and six months minimum notice to the Lessor if Lessee intends to exercise the
lease options or vacate the property at 3925 Vernon Street, Long Beach, CA.

       Agreed to by:


       /s/ ALLAN KOLSKY                       Date: 12/28/99
       ----------------                             --------
       Mr. Allan Kolsky
       Trustee



       /s/ DAVID MOARD                       Date: December 28, 1999
       ---------------                             -------------------
       Mr. David Moard
       President
<PAGE>




                                    EXHIBIT 5

             Opinion and Consent of Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison LLP



                                 August 16, 2000

Ultratech Stepper, Inc.
3050 Zanker Road
San Jose, California 95134

          Re:  Ultratech Stepper, Inc. Registration Statement for Offering of
               400,000 Shares of Common Stock

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:

          We have acted as counsel to Ultratech Stepper, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), in connection with the registration on Form S-8
(the "Registration Statement") under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, of
an additional 400,000 shares of the Company's common stock (the "Shares") for
issuance under the Company's Supplemental Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan, as
amended and restated effective June 29, 2000 (the "Supplemental Plan").

          This opinion is being furnished in accordance with the requirements of
Item 8 of Form S-8 and Item 601(b)(5)(i) of Regulation S-K.

          We have reviewed the Company's charter documents and the corporate
proceedings taken by the Company in connection with the establishment and
amendment of the Supplemental Plan. Based on such review, we are of the opinion
that if, as and when the Shares are issued and sold (and the consideration
therefor received) pursuant to (a) the provisions of option agreements duly
authorized under the Supplemental Plan and in accordance with the Registration
Statement or (b) duly authorized direct stock issuances under the Supplemental
Plan effected in accordance with the Registration Statement, such Shares will be
duly authorized, legally issued, fully paid and non-assessable.

          We consent to the filing of this opinion letter as Exhibit 5 to the
Registration Statement.

          This opinion letter is rendered as of the date first written above and
we disclaim any obligation to advise you of facts, circumstances, events or
developments which hereafter may be brought to our attention and which may
alter, affect or modify the opinion expressed herein. Our opinion is expressly
limited to the matters set forth above and we render no opinion, whether by
implication or otherwise, as to any other matters relating to the Company, the
Supplemental Plan or the Shares.

                                           Very truly yours,

                                           /s/ Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison LLP

                                           BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement 
Nos. 333-28145, 333-69601, 333-23623, and 333-68355 of John Deere Capital 
Corporation on Form S-3 of our report dated November 24, 1998, appearing in 
this Annual Report on Form 10-K of John Deere Capital Corporation for the 
year ended October 31, 1998, and to the reference to us under the heading 
"Experts" in the Prospectuses, which are part of such Registration Statements.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Chicago, Illinois

January 25, 1999
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.3

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

    We hereby consent to the use in this Registration Statement on Form S-1 of
our report dated July 25, 2000 relating to the financial statements of the Ford
Motor Company Customs Compliance Department, which appear in such Registration
Statement. We also consent to the references to us under the headings "Experts"
in such Registration Statement.

/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Detroit, Michigan
August 30, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEETS, STATEMENTS OF OPERATION,  STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY, STATEMENTS
OF CASH FLOWS,  AND THE NOTES  THERETO,  WHICH MAY BE FOUND ON PAGES F-1 THROUGH
F-12 OF THE COMPANY'S  FORM 10-K FOR THE PERIOD ENDED  DECEMBER 31, 1997, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         6,538
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               6,538
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6,538
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,109,950
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       23,144
<OTHER-SE>                                     (5,230,445)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6,538
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               151
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               7,799
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,648)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,648)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,648)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.01)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The Real Hip Hop Network, Inc.; (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Quarterly Report”) and pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), , Atonn F. Muhammad the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:
 
 1. The Company’s Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2. The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the periods covered by the Quarterly Report and the results of operations of the Company for the periods covered by the Quarterly Report.
 
 Date: November 22, 2013
 /s/Atonn F. MuhammadAtonn F. MuhammadChief Executive Officer
 
 This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
#### Iris MASSEY, Appellant, v. Arthur MASSEY, Appellee.

No. 68-393.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Aug. 6, 1968.

Richard H. W. Maloy, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Robert L. Achor, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal whereby appellant, Iris Massey, who was the plaintiff in the original action for divorce, seeks review of an order on mandate entered by the circuit court. This court’s opinion on the appeal of the final decree of divorce is reported in Massey v. Massey, Fla.App.1968, 205 So.2d 1.

Appellant presents three points upon which she urges reversal of certain portions of the order on the mandate. Initially, appellant argues that the lower court erred in allocating entirely to alimony the increase in payments by the husband ordered by this court. Appellant contends that the increase should have been apportioned between alimony and child support. We do not agree. It is settled that awards *261of alimony and amounts thereof are within the discretion of the chancellor. Milander v. Milander, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 876. The record on appeal, briefs and arguments of counsel are devoid of any showing of abuse of that discretion by the chancellor upon remand. There is no error in allocating the entire increase in payments to alimony.

Secondly, appellant claims error in that the ordered increase was not made retroactive to take effect upon the date of the initial decree of divorce. We find merit in this contention. Our opinion at 205 So.2d 1, 2, makes it clear that, under the evidence presented, the original award of periodic alimony was so inadequate as to constitute an abuse of the chancellor’s discretion. Upon that basis, that portion of the divorce decree was reversed. The amended decree takes the place of that portion of the original decree so reversed, and must be made to take effect as of the date of the original award. The increase, then, should have been made retroactive to the date of the original decree, viz., July 15, 1966.

Finally, it is urged by appellant that the chancellor erred in deleting paragraph five of the original decree awarding the family home to the wife as lump sum alimony. In support of this contention, appellant argues that the provision in the divorce decree awarding lump sum alimony was not before this court upon appeal, and that, therefore, the chancellor was without jurisdiction upon remand to amend that portion of the decree which was affirmed. In fairness to the chancellor, we point out that the opinion in 205 So.2d 1, is susceptible to the interpretation placed upon it by him. However, we made mention of the fact that the award transferred to the wife all obligations of maintaining the homestead only to bear witness to the conclusion that the award of periodic alimony was inadequate to cope with such a burden. As there exists in the pleadings ample ground for the award of the home as lump sum alimony, such award was not improper. Therefore, that portion of the order on mandate revoking such award is reversed.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Bomer SMITH.

No. 53686.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 29, 1973.

Sam J. D’Amico, D’Amico & Curet, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee.

*577William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., LeRoy A. Hartley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Samuel C. Cashio, Dist. Atty., Joseph W. Cole, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellant.

SANDERS, Chief Justice.

The defendant, Bomer Smith, was indicted by the Pointe Coupee Parish Grand Jury for the crime of illegal use of a weapon. LSA-R.S. 14:94. On April 21, 1972, the defendant filed several pre-trial motions, including a motion to quash the indictment. On June 26, 1972, the district judge sustained the defendant’s motion to quash. No bill of exceptions was reserved. The State has appealed the ruling.

Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. He asserts that since the extensions for filing the appeal were granted after the extended return date had expired, that the extensions were null and void.

The original order for appeal by the State made the appeal returnable to the Supreme Court pf Louisiana on or before June 12, 1972. On June 6, 1972, the district court extended the return date to July *12,*1972. On July *13,*1972, the return date was extended to August 11, 1972. Thus, the extension was granted one day after the expiration of the original return date.

On August 11, 1972, the return date was extended to September *11,*1972. On September *13,*1972, the second day after the time had expired, another extension of the return date was ordered to October 11, 1972.

On October 11, 1972, the return date was extended one month. On November 11, 1972, the return date was extended to December *11,*1972. On December *12,*1972, the day after the expiration of the return date, a further extension was granted of a month. Further extensions were granted to July 6, 1973. The record was lodged in this Court on June 25, 1973.

Thus, the issue presented is whether this appeal was timely lodged.

Under Articles 916 and 919 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial court is authorized to extend the return date. Once the return date has expired, however, no further extension is possible. Upon the expiration of the return date, the judgment becomes final. See LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 919, Comment (b); State v. Price, La., 274 So.2d 194 (1973); State v. Ash, 257 La. 337, 242 So.2d 535 (1971); Wischer v. Madison Realty Co., 242 La. 334, 136 So.2d 62 (1961).

In Wischer v. Madison Realty Co., supra, the rule is succinctly stated as follows :

> “Any action of the trial court upon an application for an extension filed after the last extended return date is without legal effect.”

In the present case, since the original return date expired without an extension, the judgment became final. The several extensions granted thereafter were without effect.

For the reasons assigned, the appeal is dismissed.
Affirmed in Part , Reversed and Remanded in Part , and Majority and

Concurring Opinion s filed August 27 , 2015

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00989

- CV

FELIX A. AUZ , Appellant

V.

MARIO CISNEROS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 165th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012

- 18908

C O N C U R R I N G O P I N I O N I join the majority opinion ’ s determination that the attorney ’ s fee s award must be reversed only because the supporting affidavit offers a global recitation of categories of tasks performed and the total number of hours expended . T he affidavit does not allocate specific hours to specific tasks, as required under Long v. Griffin , 442 S.W.3d 253, 254

- 55 (Tex. 2014) (per curiam); City of Laredo v. Montano , 414 S.W.3d 731, 736 (Tex. 2013) (per curiam); and El Apple I, Ltd. v. Olivas , 370 S.W.3d 757, 764 (Tex. 2012).2

I join reluctantly because reversal here seems like an unduly formalistic result
in a sim ple case involving a simple commercial dispute requiring a modest expenditure of 30 attorney hours to obtain a favorable judgment. By no mea sure is
the requested fee disproportionate to the result. The situation here does not resemble
the extreme and abu sive scenarios presented in other cases in which attorneys seeking fees failed to allocate more than 600 hours of attorney time as in Long ; failed to allocate more than 1,300 hours of attorney time as in City of Laredo ; and failed to
allocate more than 800 hours of attorney time as in El Apple I, Ltd

. H aving opted to invoke the lodestar method for computing attorney ’ s fees, appellee Cisneros
nonetheless must satisfy that method ’ s requirements as set forth in El Apple I, Ltd. and its progeny. See City of L aredo , 414 S.W.3d at 736. Among other things, that means allocating specific hours to specific tasks.
The supreme court has allowed some flexibility in requiring documentation for

“ the simplest cases, ” a category that certainly captures th is contract disp ute between
Auz and Cisneros. See El Apple I, Ltd. , 370 S.W.3d at 763. It could be argued that similar flexibility is appropriate when addressing a failure to allocate not very many
hours to not very many specific tasks in “ the simplest cases. ” I do not read Long , City of Laredo , and El Apple I, Ltd . to leave room for such a discussion. Allocation always is required under these decisions when the lodestar method is invoked, even in

“ the simplest cases ” involving a modest number of hours.

/s/ William J. Boyce Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and McCally. (Frost, C. J., majority) (McCally, J. joins both the Majority Opinion and the C oncurring opinion).
#### Vinson ATES and Minnie Ates, husband and wife, Appellants, v. John PITTMAN, individually, Appellee.

No. S-241.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 17, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 13, 1973.

Roderic G. Magie, Levin, Warfield, Graff, Mabie & Rosenbloum, Pensacola, for appellants.

A. L. Johnson, Johnson, Johnson & Green, Milton, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed. See 63 Am.Jur.2d 798, 800, Public Officers & Employees, §§ 288, 289.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and SPEC-TOR and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies
that to the best of his knowledge (1) this Quarterly Report of Corporate Capital Trust, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (this 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 this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 and its results of operations for the period ended September 30, 2016.



|                        |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                     
|----------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 11, 2016 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Thomas K. Sittema                                               
|                        |  |  |  |  |  | Thomas K. Sittema                                                   
|                        |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer)               
|                        |  |  | 
|Date: November 11, 2016 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Steven D. Shackelford                                           
|                        |  |  |  |  |  | Steven D. Shackelford                                               
|                        |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
and Accounting Officer)
1

Locating and Using County Business Patterns Data 

on the Internet

This guide provides steps to access County Business Patterns (CBP) 

data using the CBP web-site.

The most current CBP data will also be available on American 

FactFinder, but will not be released there for several weeks.

Please note that the CBP website is being revised so the screen shots 

shown in these instructions may not exactly match the current pages. 

The procedures to access the data will remain the same, so you can 

use the following instructions to obtain the data you are seeking.

U.S. Census Bureau

Economic Planning and Coordination Division

June 2011
2

1. Go to www.census.gov 2. Click “Subjects A to Z”
3

3. Click the letter “C”

4. Choose “County Business Patterns”
4

5. Click 1st drop down box 

to select data for U.S., 

states, or counties.
5

Starting point to 

display U.S., 

state, or county 

data
6

Select a state or click 

the pull down tab to 

choose a county 
7

Click here to select 

greater industry detail

Selected county

Noise Infusion – A method for 

maintaining data confidentiality

Year selector – the most 

recent data is the default
8

Click here to compare data across 

same the same geographic level

6-Digit NAICS is the most detailed 

industry data available from CBP
9

NAICS 238350 now compared 

across all Maryland counties Cell disclosures
10

Export buttons to save data 

in .txt or csv formats

Click here to choose a 

New geographic area
11

Noise Flag Definitions

G - Low Noise Infusion

H - Medium Noise Infusion

D - Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual companies; 

data are included in higher level totals

S – Withheld because estimate did not meet publication 

standards

Note: Flags are links to popup box definitions
12

Puerto Rico and Island Areas & 

Metro Business Patterns data 

display the same as County 

Business Patterns
13

Enter individual Zip Code 

to view data
14

Click here to download 

complete data sets
15

Record layouts and reference links

for industry and geography

Separate data files for each geography
16

North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) reference
17

State/County reference
18

Record Layout for 

U.S. file
19

Large data files 

are compressed in 

.ZIP format 
20

County file only has 

establishment counts 

(fields beginning with “n”) 

by employment size 

Column Headings are in first row.

Data is displayed in Comma-Separated 

Values (csv) format.
21

The U.S. file and state files also 

contain employment, first quarter 

payroll, and annual payroll by 

employment size.
22

U.S. Census Bureau Contacts

Media: Public Information Office

301-763-3030

General Public: Customer Services Center

301-762-4636

Technical Assistance: County Business Patterns Staff

Economic Planning and 

Coordination Division

301-763-2580
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Raymond HARRIS.

No. 59515.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 1977.

Wilson R. Ramshur, Willis & Ramshur, St. Francisville, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Leon A. Picou, Jr., Dist. Atty., A. Z. Butterworth, Special Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
257 La. 977

#### W. T. WHIDDON v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 51204.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 3, 1971.

In re: W. T. Whiddon applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, writ of review, and stay order.

Application denied. The ruling is correct.