alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment #11 to Master Services Agreement



 Exhibit 10.11.13 

AMENDMENT #11 
 TO 
 MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT 

This Amendment (“Amendment”) effective February 24, 2010 (“Amendment Effective Date”) is between Synacor, Inc.
(“Synacor”) and Embarq Management Company, (“Client”) under which the parties hereto mutually agree to modify and amend the Synacor Master Services Agreement, dated December 4, 2006 (including the
exhibits, schedules and amendments thereto, the “Agreement”). All terms defined herein shall be applicable solely to this Amendment. Any defined terms used herein, which are defined in the Agreement and not otherwise defined herein, shall
have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement. 
 In consideration of the premises and mutual covenants herein and for other good and
valuable consideration, the sufficiency and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 
  

	1.0	Modification of Notice Period: The parties hereby agree that notwithstanding the required notice period set forth in Section 6.1 of the Agreement, Client
shall have until March 8, 2010 to provide Synacor written notice of its intent not to renew the Agreement. If no notice is received by Synacor on or before March 8, 2010, the Agreement will automatically renew in accordance with its
Section 6.1. 

  

	2.0	Scope of Amendment: This Amendment supersedes all proposals, oral or written, all negotiations, conversations, or discussions between or among parties relating
to the subject matter of this Amendment and all past dealing or industry custom. This Amendment shall be integrated in and form part of the Agreement upon execution. All terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged except as
expressly modified in this Amendment; and the terms of the Agreement, as modified by this Amendment, are hereby ratified and confirmed. Where the terms of the Agreement conflict with those of this Amendment, however, the terms of this Amendment
shall control. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement. 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the Amendment Effective Date. 

 

									
	SYNACOR, INC.	 		 	Embarq Management Company
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Robert F. Cavallari
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Robert W. Smith II

					
	Name:	 	 Robert F. Cavallari
	 		 	Name:	 	 Robert W. Smith II

					
	Title	 	 V.P. - Finance
	 		 	Title:	 	 Manager - Sourcing

					
	Date:	 	 2/26/10
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00061-CR

MICHAEL HONGPATHOUM, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 371st District Court

of Tarrant County (1321486D)

June 6, 2019

Opinion by Justice Kerr

(p)

JUDGMENT

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

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Elizabeth Kerr__________________

 Justice Elizabeth Kerr
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

 

 

In connection with the quarterly report of First National Energy Corporation (the "Registrant"), on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date, I, Peter Wanner, as Principal Accounting Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

 

(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 results of operations of the Registrant. 

 

 Date: August 14, 2009

By: /s/ Peter Wanner

Peter Wanner

Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 128 (Thursday, September 20, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6495-S6496]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                             CYBER SECURITY

  Mr. COATS. Madam President, yesterday Senator Landrieu, chairman of 
the Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee, and I entered a 
colloquy into the Record, and I would like to explain very briefly what 
it was we were attempting to do.
  This is essentially to clarify a provision regarding cyber security 
that is incorporated in the continuing resolution, which we will be 
taking up here shortly. I understand there has been

[[Page S6496]]

confusion over section 137 as to whether the language that is now 
incorporated in the CR expands DHS authority or allows implementation 
of a potential Executive order pertaining to cyber security. The answer 
to that question is no, absolutely not. The provision is limited to 
funding improvements in the Federal Network Security Program, which 
provides security systems that monitor cyber attacks on Federal 
Government computer networks. It helps enhance the protection for those 
existing networks that are in place.
  It is important that both the House and Senate homeland security 
appropriations bills included this additional funding, and it is 
considered so critical, it was added to the continuing resolution so 
that this implementation can continue without interruption. It does so 
because these networks are constantly under attack by individuals and 
groups and others who could cause real problems and real harm to our 
country.
  So let me be very clear on the language that has been agreed on in a 
bipartisan basis and what the colloquy said. This provision does not 
intrude upon the authorizers' jurisdiction. This provision does not 
have anything to do with the regulation of private sector 
infrastructure. DHS has confirmed that in writing. And this provision 
does not enable a new Executive order in any way. I would be the first 
to object to this language if that were the case, and I believe we have 
now remedied any confusion that might exist over that particular 
language.
  I am hopeful that even though we were not able to ultimately pass and 
incorporate workable cyber protection language, that we can continue to 
work together.
  I wish to thank the chair of the Appropriations Homeland Security 
Subcommittee, Senator Landrieu, for joining me and clarifying this 
important provision included in the continuing resolution.
  With that, I wish to thank my colleague from Rhode Island for 
allowing me the time, and unfortunately his good presentation was 
interrupted. I thank my colleague for the time to clarify that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I am very happy to allow my 
colleague from Indiana the time, and I appreciate his good work on 
cyber security and hope that he and I and others can work toward a 
legislative solution on that.

                          ____________________
```
americanchemistry.com ® 700 Second St ., NE | Washington, DC 20002 | (202) 249.7000

November 8, 2013

Katherine Sleasman

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Chemical Control Division

Existing Chemicals Branch

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004

Dear Katherine:

Thank you very much for your presen tation at the 2013 Polyurethanes Technical Conference. It

is extremely valuable for the members of the ACC Center for the Polyurethanes Industry and

others who attend the conference to hear about the developments under EPA’s Action Plans for

MDI and TDI ea ch year. Your presentations are always well attended and the information is

much sought after by the value chain

.

In your slides, and in your response to my follow

- up question , you indicated that EPA will

“initiate a rulemaking under TSCA section 5(a)(2) for a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR)

designating certain uses of TDI in a consumer product as a new use requiring prior notice to the

Agency.” This raises a question: is EPA now considering a SNUR on finished consumer

products ? If so

, then this action w ould be a significant departure from EPA’s original intent

expressed in the Chemical Action Plans and I would like to ask for further clarification regarding

EPA’s intention with regard to the planned TDI SNUR. I am request ing a meeting during the

week of December 2 nd with you and whomever else from EPA that you believe would be

appropriate to discuss developments under the Action Plans for TDI and MDI.

Please feel free to contact me at 202

- 249

- 6604 or lee_salamone@americanchemistry.com . I look

forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Lee Salamone

Senior Director

cc: Wendy Cleland

- Hamnett

Leslie Cronkhite

Maria Doa
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1495/2006

of 10 October 2006         

fixing the export refunds on poultrymeat

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in poultrymeat (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 8(3) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   Export refunds as provided for in Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the condition provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article.

2.   The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 must meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004, notably preparation in an approved establishment and compliance with the identification marking requirements laid down in Annex II, Section I to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 11 October 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 10 October 2006.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 282, 1.11.1975, p. 77. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 679/2006 (OJ L 119, 4.5.2006, p. 1).

(2)OJ L 139, 30.4.2004, p. 55, as corrected by OJ L 226, 25.6.2004, p. 22.

(3)OJ L 139, 30.4.2004, p. 1, as corrected by OJ L 226, 25.6.2004, p. 3.

----

ANNEX

Export refunds on poultrymeat applicable from 11 October 2006

----
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Gene-environmental interactions on Aging and AD-related Dementias.                    

*Date:*                         February 14, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Nijaguna Prasad, Ph.D.,  Scientific Review Officer,  Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Gateway Bldg. Suite 2W200, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-9667,                         *prasadnb@nia.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 12, 2024.

Miguelina Perez, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-00955 Filed 1-18-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Exhibit 15.2Securities and Exchange Commission
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                          UNIONBANCAL CORPORATION AND
                         UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA, N.A.

                            AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999

ACTIVE SUBSIDIARIES OF UNIONBANCAL CORPORATION

<TABLE>
<S>  <C>
1.   Bankers Commercial Corporation
2.   Cal First Properties, Inc.
3.   HighMark Capital Management, Inc.
4.   Mills-Ralson, Inc.
5.   Stanco Properties, Inc.
6.   UNBC Leasing, Inc.
7.   UnionBanCal Commercial Funding Corporation
8.   UnionBanCal Equities, Inc.
9.   UnionBanCal Leasing Corporation
10.  UnionBanCal Mortgage Corporation
11.  UnionBanCal Venture Corporation

ACTIVE SUBSIDIARIES OF UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA, N.A.

1.   Inland Property Company
2.   UBOC Investment Services, Inc.
3.   Union Bank of California International

INACTIVE SUBSIDIARIES

1.   SBS Realty Inc.
2.   UNBC Cayman, Limited
3.   UBOC Comstock I
4.   Union Bank of California Leasing, Inc.
</TABLE>

<PAGE>
                                    [CHART]
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
Nos. 33-3-3040, 333-67581, 333-67581-01, 333-67581-02, 333-67581-03 and
333-67581-04 on Form S-3 and Registration Statements Nos. 33-3-3042, 33-3-3044,
333-27987 and 333-95497 on Form S-8 of UnionBanCal Corporation of our report
dated January 28, 2000, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
UnionBanCal Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1999.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Deloitte & Touche LLP

San Francisco, California
March 15, 2000
4. P. Written Comments Received During the 15-day 

 Comment Period. 




CSPA Comments on the 15-Day Notice 

August 25, 2008

Page 2 of 3 

CSPA believes that it is critically important for ARB to clearly identify which products are 

subject to California’s very stringent VOC limits. Precise and unambiguous regulatory 

provisions benefit both ARB and the regulated entities. 

Thus, CSPA supports the ARB’s decision to withdraw the original proposed definition. In 

written comments CSPA filed on June 23, the Association presents pragmatic recommendations 

for producing clear demarcations for the products that ARB considers to be subject to the 

applicable VOC limits. CSPA commits to continue working cooperatively with ARB staff and 

the other stakeholders to develop a regulatory language that removes any potential ambiguity as 

to whether the ARB’s regulatory provisions apply to specific products. 

2. CSPA Supports ARB’s Action to Clarify the Definition of the Term “Floor Maintenance 

Product.”4

The modification to the definition for this product category removes any potential ambiguity as 

to applicable regulatory limits. During the past 20 years, ARB staff has done a commendable job 

developing a comprehensive set of precise definitions to ensure that no product is inadvertently 

subject to more than one VOC limit or more than one set of regulations. In this case, the 

modification makes it unambiguously clear that the Floor Maintenance Product category is 

subject to provisions of the Consumer Products Regulation. CSPA strongly believes that this 

type of clarity is necessary for companies to fully comply with ARB’s comprehensive regulatory 

requirements. 

3. CSPA Supports ARB’s Action Clarifying the Applicability of the Regulatory Limit for 

the “Motor Vehicle Wash” Product Category. 

The modification to the Motor Vehicle Wash Product category in the Table of Standards5

unambiguously conveys ARB’s intent that the stringent new VOC limit applies only to the nonaerosol form of this particular product category. CSPA strongly believes that this modification is 

both reasonable and necessary; accordingly, we support the ARB’s action on this issue. 

Conclusion 

CSPA thoroughly reviewed the Board Resolution and Modified Text issued subsequent to the 

June 26th Board Hearing and believes that it is consistent with the Board instructions to staff at 

the Hearing. Therefore, CSPA supports all of the modifications released for 15-day public 

comment. 

CSPA appreciates the opportunity to comment on these important proposed regulatory changes 

to the California Consumer Products Regulation. CSPA commends the ARB staff’s exemplary 

efforts to ensure that all interested parties had an opportunity to participate in this open and 

transparent public effort to develop amendments to California’s very comprehensive Consumer 

 4

 Cal. Code Regs. Title 17, Subchapter 8.5, Article 4, § 94508(a)(58). 

5 Id. at § 94509(a).
#### Ex parte McNEAL.

No. A-11913.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

April 1, 1953.

*952O. A. Brewer, Hugo, for petitioner.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Lewis A. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Vester V. Songer, County Atty., Choctaw County, Hugo, for State.

POWELL, Presiding Judge.

This is an original action instituted by petitioner, George Edd McNeal, for the purpose of being admitted to bail upon a charge of murder, now pending against him in the district court of Choctaw County.

The petition alleges that George Edd McNeal is restrained of his liberty by the sheriff of Choctaw County, Oklahoma, by reason of a commitment issued by an examining magistrate, committing him to the county jail after preliminary examination and upon a complaint wherein the petitioner was charged with the crime of murder alleged to have been committed by killing one Dewey Hutson on February 1, 1953; that by information filed in the district court of Choctaw County he is charged with the murder of Dewey Hut-son; that under the evidence produced on his preliminary examination the proof of his guilt is not evident nor the presumption thereof great that petitioner is guilty of murder; and that petitioner has made application to be admitted to bail to the district court of Choctaw County, which application was by said court denied.

At' the time of the hearing before this court petitioner introduced a transcript of the testimony taken before the committing magistrate at the preliminary hearing, and at the hearing before the district court of Choctaw County. After hearing argument of counsel and after consideration of the facts as shown by the testimony on the part of the State produced on the preliminary examination'- and of the parties at the hearing- before the district court of Choctaw County upon which the application herein for bail was submitted, without expressing any conclusion upon the weight of the evidence, we are of the opinion that the evidence so produced was sufficient to warrant committing petitioner for trial upon the- crime 'of murder, and that petitioner is not entitled to bail as a matter of legal right. He is, of course, entitled to -a speedy trial.

For the reasons stated, the writ is refused-, and bail denied.

JONES and BRETT, JJ., concur.
Fifth Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement



 Exhibit 10.19 
 FIFTH AMENDMENT TO 
 PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT

 This Fifth Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement (“Fifth
Amendment”) is executed as of the 12th day of
October, 2011 by and between EQUASTONE PALISADES I, LLC, EQUASTONE PALISADES II, LLC, EQUASTONE PALISADES III, LLC, EQUASTONE GREENWAY I, LLC, EQUASTONE GREENWAY IA, LLC and EQUASTONE GREENWAY II, LLC (collectively, the “Sellers”)
and JP REALTY PARTNERS, LTD., a Texas limited partnership (“Purchaser”) and constitutes a part of that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement between the parties dated August 4, 2011, as amended (the “Agreement”).
All capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement. 

1.      Section 3.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to delete the second sentence
and to add the following in its place: 
 “Within two (2) business days after the earlier to occur of
(i) one (1) business day after the completion of the 3-14 Audit (as defined in Section 11 of the Fourth Amendment) or (ii) October 21, 2011 (the “3-14 Audit Deadline”), the Purchaser shall deposit the Increased
Earnest Money with the Escrow Agent.” 
 2.      Except as expressly set
forth above, Purchaser and Sellers, by the execution hereof, hereby acknowledge that the Agreement remains in full force and effect. 
 3.      This Fifth Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which will constitute the same agreement. Any
signature page of this Fifth Amendment may be detached from any counterpart of this Fifth Amendment without impairing the legal effect of any signatures thereon and may be attached to another counterpart of this Fifth Amendment identical in form
hereto but having attached to it one or more additional signature pages. 

4.      Facsimile copies of this Fifth Amendment or copies of this Fifth Amendment
delivered by electronic mail as a Portable Document Format (Adobe Acrobat) (also known as a PDF) attachment to such electronic mail, shall be considered for all purposes as originals and binding on the parties that executed them. 

[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

  
 1 








 
			
	SELLERS:
	
	EQUASTONE PALISADES I, LLC,
		
	By:	 	/s/ Kirk Cypel
		 	Kirk Cypel, CEO
	
	EQUASTONE PALISADES II, LLC,
		
	By:	 	/s/ Kirk Cypel
		 	Kirk Cypel, CEO
	
	EQUASTONE PALISADES III, LLC,
		
	By:	 	/s/ Kirk Cypel
		 	Kirk Cypel, CEO
	
	EQUASTONE GREENWAY I, LLC,
		
	By:	 	/s/ Kirk Cypel
		 	Kirk Cypel
	
	EQUASTONE GREENWAY IA, LLC,
		
	By:	 	/s/ Kirk Cypel
		 	Kirk Cypel, CEO
	
	EQUASTONE GREENWAY II, LLC,
		
	By:    	 	/s/ Kirk Cypel
		 	Kirk Cypel, CEO



  
 2 








 
					
	PURCHASER:
	
	 JP REALTY PARTNERS, LTD.,
 a Texas limited partnership

		
	By:    	 	Trevmar, LLC,
		 	General Partner
			
		 	By:    	 	/s/ Mark D. Jordan
		 		 	Mark D. Jordan, President



  
 3
EXHIBIT 23.1

               Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-3 No. 333-69989) of OnHealth Network Company and Registration Statements (Form
S-8 No. 33-76498, Form S-8 No. 333-70147,  Form S-8 No. 333-70149,  Form S-8 No.
333-81757,  Form S-8 No. 333-81753) pertaining to the 1991 Stock Option Plan and
Director  Stock Option Plan,  1997 Stock Option Plan,  1997-1998 New Hire Option
Plan and  1998-1999  New Hire  Option Plan of  OnHealth  Network  Company of our
report  dated  February 18, 2000 with respect to the  financial  statements  and
schedule of OnHealth  Network Company  included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended December 31, 1999.


                                                      \s\ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Seattle, Washington
March 24, 2000


<PAGE>