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


 


First Amendment to the Amended and Restated
Agreement of Limited Partnership of Columbia Property Trust Operating Partnership, L.P.


 


On
September 7, 2021, Columbia Property Trust, Inc. (the “Corporation”), the general partner of Columbia Property Trust
Operating Partnership, L.P. (“Company OP”), Columbia OP LP, LLC and the holders representing a majority of the outstanding
Series A Convertible, Perpetual Preferred Units of Company OP approved and adopted the following amendment to the Amended and Restated
Agreement of Limited Partnership of Columbia Property Trust Operating Partnership, L.P. to be effective immediately.


 


Section 2 of the Series A Convertible,
Perpetual Preferred Units Addendum of the Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Columbia Property Trust Operating Partnership,
L.P. is hereby amended to add thereto a new subsection (f), which shall read in its entirety as follows:


 


(f)            Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, in no event shall any Series A Preferred Unit be entitled to receive or entitle
its holder to receive, nor shall the Series A Distribution include, (i) any part of any Additional Dividends, Special Dividend
or REIT Dividend, or (ii) any payments that the holders of any Series A Preferred Unit would otherwise be entitled to receive
as a result of the authorization, declaration or payment of any such Additional Dividends, Special Dividend or REIT Dividend, in each
case regardless of whether such Additional Dividends, Special Dividend or REIT Dividend is authorized, declared or distributed prior to
or following the Partnership Merger Effective Time.  As used in this Section 2(f), the terms “Additional Dividends,”
 “Special Dividend,” “REIT Dividend” and “Partnership Merger Effective Time” shall have the meanings
given thereto in the Agreement and Plan of Merger by and between Columbia Property Trust, Inc., Company OP, Panther Merger Parent, Inc.
and Panther Merger Sub, LLC, dated as of September 7, 2021 (as it may be amended or restated from time to time).
Exhibit 4

Case 6:20-cv-00456-ADA Document 47-4 Filed 01/29/21 Page 1 of 2
Case 6:20-cv-00456-ADA Document 47-4 Filed 01/29/21 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5216 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5216

To suspend temporarily the duty on helical springs not suitable for use 
   in motor-vehicle suspension, of iron or steel wire having a cross-
                sectional dimension of 12.7 mm or more.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2012

 Mr. Mulvaney introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on helical springs not suitable for use 
   in motor-vehicle suspension, of iron or steel wire having a cross-
                sectional dimension of 12.7 mm or more.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. HELICAL SPRINGS NOT SUITABLE FOR USE IN MOTOR-VEHICLE 
              SUSPENSION, OF IRON OR STEEL WIRE HAVING A CROSS-
              SECTIONAL DIMENSION OF 12.7 MM OR MORE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Helical springs     Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        not suitable for                                                   31/2015.......
                        use in motor-
                        vehicle
                        suspension, of
                        iron or steel
                        wire having a
                        cross-sectional
                        dimension of 12.7
                        mm or more
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        7320.20.50)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DEL RIO DIVISION

United States of America

vs.

(1) Trever Lloyd Sexton

§

§

§

§

§

Case Number: DR:20-M -01180(1)

 Defendant

ORDER

 On motion of the United States Government requesting detention of the Defendant,

(1) Trever Lloyd Sexton, a hearing was set for 07/10/20.

JUAN NERI was appointed to represent the defendant. On 07/08/20, the attorney for

the defendant filed a Waiver of Preliminary and Detention Hearing signed by the attorney and the

defendant waiving the hearings and the right to contest the Government's motion.

 THEREFORE, pursuant to this waiver, it is ordered that the defendant be detained

without bond until the completion of this case.

 SIGNED on 8th day of July, 2020.

______________________________

VICTOR ROBERTO GARCIA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:20-mj-01180-VRG Document 14 Filed 07/08/20 Page 1 of 1
From: 

"Teresa S. Bowers" <TBOWERS@gradientcorp.com> 

To: 

Nathan Topham/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: 

"Stotts, Stacy" <SStotts@stinson.com>, "Marucheau, Louis" <lmarucheau@doerun.com>, 

"'Miller, Aaron'" 

<amiller@doerun.com>, Joe Stolle <joseph@shellengr.com> 

Date: 

03/30/2011 01:25 PM 

Subject

: 

Doe Run property ownership map

Nate, 

Attached is the Doe Run property ownership map that I showed in the meeting 

yesterday. 

 

Terri 

--- 

Teresa S. Bowers, Ph.D. | Principal 

617-395-5524 | tbowers@gradientcorp.com 

Gradient | 20 University Road | Cambridge, MA 02138 | 617-395-5000 | 

www.gradientcorp.com 

This message contains information which may be confidential or privileged. Unless 

you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for 

the addressee), you may not use, copy, or disclose to anyone this message or any 

information contained in the message. If you have 

received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail, and delete

all copies of this message and its attachment(s). 

 

Page 1
A

p

Project No.: xxxxxx; PM: xxx; Drawn By: mkovach; Checked By: xxx; Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Missouri East FIPS 2401 Feet; Path: G:\Projects\202022-DoeRun\Graphics\CADGIS\101\202022-101_05_VPP_Changes.mxd;
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

___________ 

No. 22-50838

___________ 

El Campo Ventures, L.L.C.,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Stratton Securities, Incorporated,

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 1:20-CV-560 RP

______________________________ 

CLERK’S OFFICE: 

Under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), the appeal is dismissed as of May 16, 

2023, pursuant to appellant’s motion. 

A True Copy

Certified order issued 

Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

May 16, 2023

FILED

DEPUTY 

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

BY: ________________________________ May 16, 2023 klw

Case 1:20-cv-00560-RP Document 153 Filed 05/16/23 Page 1 of 3
No. 22-50838

2

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk of the United States Court

of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

 By: _________________________ 

Melissa V. Mattingly, Deputy Clerk

 ENTERED AT THE DIRECTION OF THE COURT

Case 1:20-cv-00560-RP Document 153 Filed 05/16/23 Page 2 of 3
United States Court of Appeals

FIFTH CIRCUIT

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

LYLE W. CAYCE

CLERK

TEL. 504-310-7700

600 S. MAESTRI PLACE, 

Suite 115

NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130

May 16, 2023

Mr. Philip Devlin

Western District of Texas, Austin

United States District Court

501 W. 5th Street

Austin, TX 78701-0000

No. 22-50838 El Campo v. Stratton

USDC No. 1:20-CV-560

Dear Mr. Devlin,

Enclosed is a copy of the judgment issued as the mandate.

Sincerely,

LYLE W. CAYCE, Clerk

By: _________________________

Melissa V. Mattingly, Deputy Clerk

504-310-7719

cc w/encl:

Mr. Benjamin Gates

Mr. Michael Lamar Jones

Mr. Jeffrey Scott Levinger

Mr. Alfonso Nevarez Jr.

Case 1:20-cv-00560-RP Document 153 Filed 05/16/23 Page 3 of 3
#### C. M. REYNOLDS, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 10, 1954.

Fritz Krueger, H. K. Spear, Somerset, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., Wm. F. Simpson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from the Pulaski Circuit Court. The judgment of conviction for unlawfully possessing intoxicating malt liquor in local option territory for the purpose of sale fixed the punishment at a fine of $50 and confinement in the county jail for 30 days. Appellant insists the beer was found in his automobile when the officers searched same without a search warrant and his motion to exclude this evidence should have been sustained; that without the evidence obtained by the illegal search, there is no evidence upon which to base his conviction and the court should have sustained his motion for a directed verdict.

The record clearly shows no search was made of his car before appellant was legally arrested. The uncontradicted evidence is that the door of his automobile was open six or eight inches and the officers in walking past it on the public road saw several cans of beer on the back floor board. They arrested appellant for having beer in his possession for sale in local option territory as his reputation for illegally dealing in alcoholic beverages was bad. Thereupon, they asked him to open the trunk of his car, which he did voluntarily, and the officers found ninety bottles of beer in it.

As this beer on the floor of the car could be seen through the open door *570as the officers. .walked by, no search warrant was necessary. Royce v. Com., 194 Ky. 480, 239 S.W. 795; Ferrell v. Com., 204 Ky. 548, 264 S.W. 1078. The search of the car trunk was with the consent of appellant, therefore he is not in position to complain of; that. Davenport v. Com., 285 Ky. 628, 148 S.W.2d 1054, 1060; Patton v. Com., 273 Ky. 258, 116 S.W.2d 311. Besides, appellant was legally under arrest for having this beer in his car and the officers had the right to search the entire car without a search warrant. Patrick v. Com., 199 Ky. 83, 250 S.W. 507; Billings v. Com., 223 Ky. 381, 3 S.W.2d 770.

The case of Settles v. Com., 294 Ky. 403, 171 S.W.2d 999, relied upon by appellant has no application as the search there was made without the consent of the accused and no offense was committed in the presence of the officers, while here, such an offense was committed in their presence.

The appeal is denied and the judgment is affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Louis A. Migenis, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree. His principal argument on appeal is that the suppression court erred in failing to suppress evidence obtained by means of an eavesdropping warrant for defendant’s residential telephone. The argument is without merit.

It is well settled that the probable cause necessary for the issuance of an eavesdropping warrant is the same as that required for the issuance of a search warrant *(People v Tambe,*71 NY2d 492, 500). The warrant application "should not be read in a hypertechnical manner * * * [but] must be considered in the clear light of everyday experience and accorded all reasonable inferences” *(People v Hanlon,*36 NY2d 549, 559). Great deference will be accorded the finding of probable cause made by the issuing Magistrate *(People v Griminger,*71 NY2d 635, 640; *People v Manuli,*104 AD2d 386).

Here, in connection with the warrant application the issuing Magistrate heard the sworn testimony of an informant who asserted personal knowledge of defendant’s possession and sales of drugs. The two-pronged *Aguilar-Spinelli*test *(see, Aguilar v Texas,*378 US 108; *Spinelli v United States,*393 US 410) is, therefore, inapplicable to the information provided by the informant because the Magistrate himself was in a position to assess the veracity of the witness in determining the *957existence of probable cause *(see, People v Taylor,*73 NY2d 683, 688; *People v Bartolomeo,*53 NY2d 225, 233-234). The testimony of the informant, combined with the usable information contained in the police officer’s affidavit, provides ample evidence to support the Magistrate’s finding of probable cause.

We also find that the police made an adequate showing that normal investigative procedures were tried and had failed, and that further normal investigative procedures were unlikely to be successful *(see,*CPL 700.15 [4]). (Appeal from judgment of Chautauqua County Court, Adams, J.—criminal possession of controlled substance, second degree.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000,000
       
<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                      JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                            $    50
<SECURITIES>                                          130
<RECEIVABLES>                                         592
<ALLOWANCES>                                            4
<INVENTORY>                                            63
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    1,007
<PP&E>                                             13,480
<DEPRECIATION>                                      4,183
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     11,364
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 986
<BONDS>                                               583
<COMMON>                                              167
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                            55
<OTHER-SE>                                          5,790
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       11,364
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    2,113
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       1,511
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       66
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     17
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       519
<INCOME-TAX>                                          191
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   328
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                          328
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 15.3



LOGO

March 30, 2012

The Board of Directors of

Randgold Resources Limited (the Company)

March 30, 2012



|Re: | Consent
|--- | -------

Gentlemen:

I, Mark Odell, do hereby consent to the reference of myself in the Companys Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31,
2011 (the Annual Report) to which this consent is an exhibit, to any reference to Mr. Mark Odell under the heading Experts in any registration statement into which the Annual Report is incorporated by reference, and to
the citation and/or summarization of the reserve statement in the Annual Report as reviewed by me for the Loulo underground mineral reserves.

Dated this 30thday of March, 2012.

Sincerely,



LOGO



LOGO
#### Fannie Miller et al., Appellants, *v.*Alberto Gonzalez, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

April 11, 1957.

*Louis George Rudd*for appellants.

*Joseph M. Nakrin*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

On the basis of the record the jury was entitled to find that the defendant was negligent in backing his vehicle into a parking space and running his wheel over a bottle in the *191roadway, causing broken glass to fly in plaintiff’s direction and to strike her, with resultant injuries to her. Whether or not ¡defendant in the exercise of reasonable care should have seen the bottle or foreseen that in striking it glass might be thrown with violence against the plaintiff here was a question of fact for the jury in view of all of the circumstances. It was error therefore for the court below to say as a matter of law that on the evidence in this case danger was not foreseeable by a prudent person *(Payne*v. *City of New York,*277 N. Y. 393).

The judgment and order should be reversed, with $30 costs, ¡motion denied and verdict for plaintiffs reinstated.

Hofstadteb, Steueb and Hecht, JJ., concur.

Judgment and order reversed, etc.
AO 85 (Rev. 01/09) Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge 

JONA THAN VILLAREAL 

vs. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION 

NO: SA:20-CV-00571-OLG 

JOHN SAENZ, MIGUEL VILLARREAL, 

JR., GUNN, LEE & CA VE, P.C. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

NOTICE, CONSENT/NON CONSENT, AND REFERENCE OF A CIVIL ACTION 

TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Notice of a magistrate judge's availability. A United States magistrate judge of this court is available to

conduct al 1 proceedings in this civil action (including a jury or non jury trial) and to order the entry of a final judgment. 

The judgment may then be appealed directly to the United States court of appeals like any other judgment of this court. 

A magistrate judge may exercise this authority only if all parties voluntarily consent. 

___ Consent to a magistrate judge's authority. The following parties consent to have a United States

magistrate judge conduct all proceedings in this case including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial 

proceedings. 

LNon Consent to a magistrate judge's authority. The following parties do not consent to have a United

States magistrate judge conduct all proceedings in this case including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all 

post-trial proceedings. 

Parties' printed names Signatures of parties or attorneys Dates 

Mr<�rl V; llaa,J, Tr. 

Gu Vin , /... ee. t Cave , P, ('. bll� {rReference Order 

IT IS ORDERED: This case is referred to a United States magistrate judge to conduct all proceedings 

and order the entry of a final judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. 

Date: 

District Judge's signature 

Printed name and title 

of--09~20 

- ~- -A-~- --=+-= ~ ~ ~- o~-01~~~ 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 17 Filed 08/07/20 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 99.1
                                 ------------


                                      13
<PAGE>


COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWMBS, INC.
                         ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2002-6
              MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2002-10


         The undersigned do hereby certify that they are each an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(a "Master Servicer"), and do hereby further certify pursuant to Section 3.16
of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

         (i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the
         preceding calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer
         under the Agreement has been made under our supervision; and

         (ii) To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Master
         Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement
         throughout such year.




/s/ Joseph M. Candelario                               Dated: March 27, 2003

JOSEPH M. CANDELARIO
FIRST VICE PRESIDENT
AND COMPLIANCE OFFICER


/s/ Mark Wong                                          Dated: March 27,  2003

MARK WONG
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT


                                      14
Document

Exhibit 10.2

SEMTECH CANADA CORPORATION 






May 26, 2021






Mr. Gary M. Beauchamp
c/o Semtech Canada Corporation
4281 Harvester Road
Burlington, ON  L7L 5M4


Dear Gary:


You and Semtech Canada Corporation (the “Company”) are parties to an agreement dated August 17, 2015, as previously amended by an agreement dated August 28, 2018 (the “Agreement”).  The portion of the Agreement titled “Treatment of Equity Awards In a Change in Control” is hereby amended by replacing the date “September 1, 2021” therein with “September 1, 2024”.  Except for that change, the Agreement continues in effect in accordance with its terms.


To confirm your acceptance of the terms included in this agreement, please sign and return a copy of this agreement to me.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, you and the Company have caused this agreement to be duly executed and delivered on the day and year first written above.


									
		Semtech Canada Corporation
		
		
		By:	/s/ Emeka N. Chukwu
			
		Name:	Emeka N. Chukwu
			
		Its:	President and Chief Financial Officer






Acknowledged and Agreed:


									
	By:	/s/ Gary M. Beauchamp	
		Gary M. Beauchamp
#### SARLLS v. STATE.

No. 24483.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 16, 1949.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 4, 1950.

*414J. W. Ragsdale, Victoria, Duncan & Davis, Gonzales, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

Th’e offense is theft of corporeal personal property over the value of Fifty Dollars. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of two years.

The indictment in this case charges one A. S. E. Sarlls with the above offense while all through the record the name of the appellant is given as A. E. Sarlls.

The transcript in this case is defective in several respects, in this, that it contains no judgment, sentence, or notice of appeal; in the absence of which, this court has not acquired jurisdiction of the case. See Art. 841, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., and cases thereunder cited.

Therefore, the purported appeal in this case will he dismissed and it is so ordered.

Opinion approved by the Court.

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The motion for rehearing in this cause asks that the appeal be reinstated on the claim that the record has been perfected.

We find that there has been filed a paper which is apparently a copy of the jury’s verdict, with the filing date, and also a copy of the entries on the judge’s trial docket. The District Clerk has signed a statement, which is not a certificate, saying that it “is a full and complete record of this supplemental transcript, and other than the docket entries as shown above there is no judgment and no sentence of record in said cause.”

If that statement be correct there is no final judgment and certainly no right of appeal.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.