alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT `A'

This  exhibit is attached and made a part of that  certain  Promissory  Note for
$5,5000,000.00,  dated February 3, 1997, from Phoenix Gold  International,  Inc.
(Borrower) to U.S. Bank (Lender).

                                 Pricing Matrix
                                 --------------

The applicable rate of interest will be governed by the Borrower's  Tangible Net
Worth and will be reviewed and adjusted  monthly,  as expressed in the following
matrix:

        Tangible Net Worth                                Interest Rate
        ------------------                                -------------

Greater than or equal to  $11,400,000                     Prime Rate + 0

Greater than or equal to $11,100,000 but
less than $11,400,000                                   Prime Rate + 0.75%

Greater than or equal to $10,700,000 but
less than $11,100,000                                   Prime Rate + 1.50%

Greater than or equal to  $10,400,000 but
less than $10,700,000                                   Prime Rate + 2.00%

Less than $10,400,000                                      Default Rate

Phoenix Gold International, Inc.

By: /s/ Joseph K. O'Brien
-------------------------
Title: Chief Financial Officer

U.S. Bank

By: /s/ Rob Teach for D.A. Rice
-------------------------------
Title: Vice President
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 LeCroy Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 1, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Sean B. OConnor, Chief 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, to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: February 9, 2011



/s/ Sean B. OConnorSean B. OConnorChief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
# Official Journal L 422/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 422 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6314 December 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 422

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6314 December 2020

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/1987 of 14 July 2020 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the lodging and release of securities in the administration of tariff quotas based on the chronological order of the submission of applications | 1 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1988 of 11 November 2020 laying down rules for the application of Regulations (EU) No 1308/2013 and (EU) No 510/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the administration of import tariff quotas in accordance with the ‘first come, first served’ principle | 4 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/1987 of 14 July 2020 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the lodging and release of securities in the administration of tariff quotas based on the chronological order of the submission of applications

1

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1988 of 11 November 2020 laying down rules for the application of Regulations (EU) No 1308/2013 and (EU) No 510/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the administration of import tariff quotas in accordance with the ‘first come, first served’ principle

4

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
8-K






Exhibit 10.2


ASSIGNMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT




This Assignment of Purchase and Sale Agreement (the “Assignment”) is made and entered into as of September 30, 2015, by and between RREEF AMERICA L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company (“Assignor”) and RPT FLATS AT CARRS HILL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Assignee”), with reference to the following facts:


Assignor, as Purchaser, and FLATS AT CARRS HILL, LP, a Florida limited partnership, as Seller (“Seller”), have entered into that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement dated as of September 24, 2015 (the “Purchase Agreement”), for the purpose of Assignor acquiring from Seller certain real property known as The Flats at Carrs Hill, Athens, Georgia, as more particularly described in the Purchase Agreement.  Assignor now desires to assign all of its rights and obligations under the Purchase Agreement, pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth herein.


NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of Ten and no/100 Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:


1.    In accordance with Section 6.2 of the Purchase Agreement, as of the date hereof, Assignor hereby assigns, conveys, transfers and delivers to Assignee all of the Assignor’s right, title and interest in and to the Purchase Agreement.  


2.    Assignee hereby agrees to expressly assume, perform, and be subject to all the terms, covenants, conditions and obligations imposed upon Assignor under the Purchase Agreement.    


3.    Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, Assignor has not been released from, and shall remain fully liable to Seller for, all pre-closing obligations under the Purchase Agreement.  Assignee’s assumption of Assignor’s obligations under the Purchase Agreement shall also inure to the benefit of Seller.  


4.    This Assignment shall be governed by the laws of the State of Georgia.


5.    Except as specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Purchase Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect, the same being confirmed, ratified, reaffirmed and republished hereby.  To the extent the terms of this Assignment conflict with the Purchase Agreement, the terms hereof shall control.









IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Assignment as of the day and year first above written.


	
		
	



	ASSIGNOR:


RREEF AMERICA L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company




By:       /s/ Jeffrey S. Anderson     
   Name:  Jeffrey S. Anderson
   Title:    Vice President












	
		
	 
	ASSIGNEE:


RPT FLATS AT CARRS HILL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 




By:       /s/ Jeffrey S. Anderson     
   Name:  Jeffrey S. Anderson
   Title:     Vice President













- 2 -
EXHIBIT 10.2


                                 AMENDMENT NO. 2
                                     TO THE
                   SITEL CORPORATION 1999 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

              As adopted by the Board of Directors on July 21, 2000


The Board hereby amends the SITEL  Corporation  1999 Stock  Incentive  Plan (the
"Plan") as follows:

       The definition "Subsidiary" in Article 2 of the Plan is amended to
state in its entirety as follows:

         "Subsidiary"  means (i) as it relates to Incentive  Stock Options,  any
         corporation   (other  than  the  Company)  in  an  unbroken   chain  of
         corporations  beginning with the Company if, at the time of granting of
         the option,  each of the corporations  (other than the last corporation
         in the unbroken  chain) owns stock  possessing 50% or more of the total
         combined  voting  power of all  classes  of  stock in one of the  other
         corporations  in such  chain  and  (ii)  for all  other  purposes,  any
         business entity,  domestic or foreign,  now or hereafter  existing,  in
         which not less than 20% of the total combined  voting power is owned or
         controlled by the Company or by a Subsidiary.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION, OPERATIONS, AND CHANGES IN TRUST
CAPITAL AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       5,034,900
<SECURITIES>                                58,753,028
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            68,356,296
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              68,356,296
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,500,786
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  63,855,510
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                68,356,296
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,277,881
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,018,619
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,018,619
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    79.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    79.95
        

</TABLE>
#### HARRIS v. STATE.

No. 21208.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 13, 1940.

Ramey A. Smith, of Sulphur Springs,_ for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is acquisition of property by threats; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The prosecution proceeded under Article 1409, P.C., which reads as follows: “If any person, by threatening to do some illegal act injurious to the character, person or property of another, shall fraudulently induce the person so threatened to deliver to him any property, with intent to appropriate the same to his own use, he shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary not less than two nor more than five years.”

It was alleged in the indictment, among other things, that appellant threatened to arrest E. A. Harbor and take him to jail if Harbor did not surrender to him part of a pint of whisky and five dollars in money. It was further alleged that appellant represented himself to be an officer of the United States Revenue Department. We find nothing in the statement of facts showing that appellant’s statement that he was an officer of the United States Revenue Department was false. The threat mentioned in the statute must be to do an illegal act. The threat to do a legal act would not come within the offense defined. Burnsides v. State, Si Tex.Cr.R. 399, 102 S.W. 118, 120. If appellant had the right to arrest Harbor he (appellant) was not threatening to do an illegal act. It being a part of the state’s case, as charged in the indictment, that appellant falsely personated an officer, it was incumbent upon the state to support such allegation. We quote from Burn-sides v. State, supra, as follows: “It was a part of the state’s case, as set out in the indictment, that appellant falsely per-sonated an officer, and that he falsely charged Martin with unlawfully boarding a train. These were allegations made in the indictment, and evidently deemed necessary to make out the state’s case. They should have been proved as alleged. * * * .” It is observed that in Burnside’s case the prosecution proceeded under Ar-*547tide 857, P.C.1895, which is now Article 1409, P.C., which we have hereinbefore quoted.

Because of the failure of the state to make the proof in question the judgment must be reversed.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1130 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1130

   To enable the Secretary of Health and Human Services to carry out 
    activities to reduce waste and fraud under the medicare program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 24, 1993

Mr. Santorum (for himself, Mr. Inglis of South Carolina, Mr. Doolittle, 
   and Mr. Zimmer) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
  jointly to the Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To enable the Secretary of Health and Human Services to carry out 
    activities to reduce waste and fraud under the medicare program.

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

SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR MEDICARE ANTI-FRAUD AND 
              SECONDARY PAYER ENFORCEMENT.

    (a) In General.--In addition to any amounts appropriated to the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services for each of the fiscal years 
described in subsection (b), there are hereby appropriated (out of any 
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated) to the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services an additional $100,000,000 for the year to 
conduct and finance peer review activities under title XI of the Social 
Security Act, enforce the provisions of title XVIII of such Act that 
prohibit payments under the medicare program for items and services for 
which the medicare program is not the primary payer, impose sanctions 
on entities providing items and services under the program that engage 
in fraud or other prohibited activities, and to carry out other 
activities to reduce waste and fraud in the administration of the 
medicare program.
    (b) Years For Which Additional Appropriations Are Made.--Subsection 
(a) shall apply to fiscal years 1994 through 1997.

                                 <all>
```
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 39

Designating May 1993 as ‘‘Older Americans Month’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. MCCOLLUM introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

JOINT RESOLUTION

Designating May 1993 as ‘‘Older Americans Month’’.

Whereas older Americans have contributed many years of

service to their families, their communities, and the Nation;

Whereas the population of the United States is comprised of

a large percentage of older Americans representing a

wealth of knowledge and experience;

Whereas older Americans should be acknowledged for the

contributions they continue to make to their communities

and the Nation; and

Whereas many States and communities acknowledge older

Americans during the month of May: Now, therefore, be

it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HJ 39 IH

1 That, in recognition of the traditional designation of the

2 month of May as ‘‘Older Americans Month’’ and the re3 peated expression by the Congress of its appreciation and

4 respect for the achievements of older Americans and its

5 desire that these Americans continue to play an active role

6 in the life of the Nation, the President is authorized and

7 requested to issue a proclamation designating the month

8 of May 1993 as ‘‘Older Americans Month’’ and calling on

9 the people of the United States to observe that month with

10 appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.

Æ
#### CRAWFORD v. STATE.

No. 24146.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 10, 1948.

Gordon R. Wellborn, of Henderson, for ■appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty./of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of a violation of the liquor laws of Rusk County, and assessed a penalty of a fine of $100.00 and confinement in jail for 60 days in jail, from which conviction he appeals.

We think it is properly shown in the statement of 'facts that thé election in the year 1903 resulted in prohibiting the sale •of intoxicating liquors in said county and that the Commissioners’ Court entered and had published its order prohibiting such sales.

As a part of his defense appellant proved by a witness that the" sale, if any, took place in Panola County rather than in Rusk County; and there is no showing relative to the wet or dry status of Panola County.

Appellant requested the trial court to charge the jury in substance that before they could convict appellant of the sale testified to by the State’s witnesses, they should believe beyond a reasonable doubt that such sale took place within 400 yards of the Rusk County line. This matter was called to the trial court’s attention in the objections to the court’s charge as *634well as by Bill of Exception. No. 8; and again in Bill No. 10, but the court denied the request to give the same. This charge requested by appellant, under the record here presented, was more restrictive of his rights than the law prescribes. In order to allow the enforcement of the local option laws of one county for 400 yards into another adjoining county, the proof should show that such adjoining county was also a dry area under the local option laws. This proof is not found in the record relative to Panola County. See Owens v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 297, 135 S.W.2d 997; Lancaster v. State, 141 Tex.Cr.R. 81, 147 S.W.2d 476. The court was in error in refusing to charge the jury relative to the offense having been committed In the adjoining County of Panola.

We suggest that if this cause be tried again, a further information should be filed showing the proper date of the holding of this election.

The judgment is reversed and the cause ■remanded.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Petitioner

 v.

GREGORY BROWN,

 Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 134 WAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 31st day of August, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6084

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BRUCE EDWARD WOODS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior

District Judge. (5:03-cr-30054-NKM-RSB-2; 5:12-cv-80401-NKMRSB)

Submitted: May 30, 2013 Decided: June 4, 2013

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bruce Edward Woods, Appellant Pro Se. Grayson A. Hoffman, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Bruce Edward Woods seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Woods has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED