alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CHARGE TO , 

GOVERNl'4JIT{PIT~ e •Je 

Uolonel Geo•SG Jtablfaa 

G&mva. 1u111oto 

OFFICIAL BUSINESS. 

WASHINGTON. 

\ 

-.or ttato - tiffloe loroe in GOOldedail.v cnaboUtu'1nG tcmsQliglml -11oh tcwou fO_. «tl'ftlopont\t.&g otgmr '8.»0D ~ 

nulllfted oatbe test -OllQ'Je4 atop mtoeaoug fol' utpl 

tOJ'Ps to ~l'G motbsr Aaae btualmeoo to mbmlt 101l lt JOU 

Q"9 willing otop ilecee de~ttiog entln lot of ~ ab-aaiy 

e~ml\'84 'o 1= atOJl ~ bMetdrig of Qllf r11·u1sago Of ~le 

ooup d.11 neaai nothlng so'°' $.C tbe atto.ck on 'he ln4eolJ)h81"abUlt1 , , 

ot tte ouutwn lo oonceno4 stnoe wo ba.WJ ecot.Gea"'11S iol'lllOM4 U01J 

tl» lrfO' to UJo eotll'b 4eolph91m«11t otop J.etteir foUo.m 6llvb18 

conorote uamplo C8 &llotlil>nt of tape Umlta stop Uperaton 91111 ot&Jot 

1---o; toaa, pr&pal'lflG QnotheJI ~ lmBlnooa Of ~bet eo.r;n et.ee oo \he.t 

Oubtt4tto4 

WATI DEPT. STA..'1DARD FORM l 't-1183 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 11-18-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7442

JOHN J. RICH, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-2882-3-13BC) Submitted: May 29, 1998 Decided: June 23, 1998 Before ERVIN and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John J. Rich, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Lauri J. Soles, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: John J. Rich, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Rich v. State of SC , No. CA-96-2882-3-13BC (D.S.C. Sept. 8, 1997). Rich’s motion to supplement the record is denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
REF ID: A69615 -

Review of NSA Regulations 

AG 

D.1'4. Gr~ .... ~9/d.lc 

1. It is requested that NBA Regulations listed below be reviewed by your 

organization to determine possible need tor revision, extension, cancellation, 

or supersession. 

NUMBER 

11-3 

TITLE EXPIRATION DATE 

D!IQDI. mcualft ABier ICIA2DIC 1 MCI a955 

.ADYD01lY :M>A1m 

2. If it is decided to revise the regu1ation, a draft of the regulation 

should be prepared in accordance with the standard format prescribed in Article 

405.2b of the NSA Connnunications and Publications Manual, together with D/F 

brief as described in Article 405.lb of the NSA Communications and Publications 

Manual. If it is decided to extend or cancel the regulation, this office 

should be notified by comment hereon. 

3. The above inl:'ormation should be prepared to reach this office prior 

to 

15 ..71117 l.955. 

---- - - -- - --- - - - - - - - - TOt Dr. Jrullback, It/D 

Tice Chai:rmn, :lxecutive Group 

ror Boa.rd A:ttairs 

D. M. GROSJFAN 

Major, WAC 

Actg. Asst. AG 

- -- - - - -- - - J'R<llt llr. l'riedmn, S/A 

In Tiew of the extended abaence or Kr. !'riedmrm, Chairman., Executive Group 

-ror lloa.rd Aff'aira, this mtter 1a ref'erred to 1011, aa Vice Cha.irmn, -ror any- recom-

•ndationa or comments you _,. wish to mke. 

l'A.Y 

~ 

BOXTI8 

.Admin. .Assistant to S/ A 

roved for Release b NSA on 11- -201 ursuantto E .0. 135
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 28, 2011

y1219 

# Order

December 28, 2011

143689

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143689 COA: 296806 Oakland CC: 2009-225193-FC WALTER WIMB HARDEMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 14, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before

publication in the New York Reports.

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

No. 170 

The People &c.,

 Respondent,

 v.

John Gayden, 

 Appellant.

David R. Juergens, for appellant.

Daniel Gross, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

On June 11, 2010, police were dispatched to Ellison

Street in Rochester, after an anonymous caller informed a 911

operator that two black males were walking back and forth in the

- 1 -
- 2 - No. 170

area of Ellison Street and Webster Avenue carrying silver colored

guns on their waists. One individual was described as wearing a

white t-shirt with red letters. The other was wearing a black tshirt.

Two uniformed police officers, each driving a marked

patrol car, responded to a radio dispatch concerning the 911

call. The first officer to arrive observed two black males

walking side-by-side on the Ellison Street sidewalk between

Webster and Bay Avenues. One male had a black t-shirt and the

other male wore a two-toned blue jacket, over what appeared to

the officer to be a light-colored t-shirt. The officer parked

his vehicle and approached the men on foot. As soon as they saw

the officer, one man fled into a backyard and the other man,

defendant, continued to walk southbound on Ellison Street. The

officer pursued the fleeing man with his gun drawn and observed

the man hide what was later discovered to be a handgun underneath

a pile of leaves.

When the second officer arrived at the scene, he

observed the fleeing man run into the backyard with the first

officer running after him and defendant walking down Ellison

Street. No one else was in the area. As the second officer

parked and exited his vehicle, defendant yelled an expletive and

fled. The officer gave chase and observed a handgun fall from

defendant's waist.

County Court denied defendant's motion to suppress the

- 2 -
- 3 - No. 170

gun. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding the second officer

had "a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot,

justifying his initial common-law inquiry of defendant" (126 AD3d

1518 [4th Dept 2015]). The court explained that defendant's

flight upon seeing the second officer exit his vehicle provided

the officer with the requisite reasonable suspicion of criminal

activity to warrant his pursuit of defendant, and the fact that

defendant dropped the gun during the pursuit gave rise to

probable cause to arrest (id. at 1519). 

The issue of whether the second officer had reasonable

suspicion to pursue defendant is a mixed question of law and

fact, limiting our review (see People v Moore, 6 NY3d 496, 500-

501 [2006]). Because there is record support for the

determination of the lower courts, we affirm (see People v Pine,

99 NY2d 525, 527 [2002]; compare Moore, 6 NY3d 496 [2006]).

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges

Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey and Garcia concur.

Decided November 17, 2016

- 3 -
pproved for release by NSA on 02-21-2014, Transparency 

ase# O 
-- --~---- .. __ ...,__ ___ - ------ --.. - --- -------- -- .. 

--------------------- ---- - ---- - ---------- '-
------~--~-

Mu..(...u,, \ S-ec..., \"" \ "\ 'j 

J::>u ~l, c. La.~ I J 8 

~ ~5'"4t._ 

l 

REF ID:A67703 

/\ c..'l- o ~ I lf C,' \ 

83,wf~
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 17, 2016

No. 04-16-00504-CV

IN RE ESTATE OF ALVILDA MAE AGUILAR, DECEASED,

From the Probate Court No 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-PC-2802

Honorable Tom Rickhoff, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellant's motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. Time is 

extended to December 29, 2016.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 17th day of November, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 170 (Friday, August 31, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53191-53192]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21549]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Unconventional Resources Technology Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Unconventional 
Resources Technology Advisory Committee. The Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this 
meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

DATES: Tuesday, September 25, 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. (CST).

ADDRESSES: Hyatt North Houston, 425 North Sam Houston Parkway East, 
Houston, TX 77060.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elena Melchert, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Oil and Natural Gas, Washington, DC 20585. Phone: 
(202) 586-5600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose of the Committee: The purpose of the Unconventional 
Resources Technology Advisory Committee is to provide advice to the 
Secretary of Energy on development and implementation of programs 
related to onshore unconventional natural gas and other petroleum 
resources; and to provide comments and recommendations and priorities 
for the Department of Energy Annual Plan per requirements of the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005, Title IX, Subtitle J, Section 999D.

Tentative Agenda

September 25, 2012

    7:30 a.m.-8:00 a.m. Registration.
    8:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. Call to Order, Welcome, Introductions, Opening 
Remarks, Overview of the Oil and Gas Unconventional Research Portfolio 
(Unconventional Resources, Small Producers, and NETL Complementary 
Research).
    1:00 p.m.-4:45 p.m. Overview of Draft 2013 Annual Plan.
    4:45 p.m.-5:00 p.m. Public Comments, if any.
    5:00 p.m. Adjourn.
    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. The 
Designated Federal Officer and the Chairman of the Committee will lead 
the meeting for the orderly conduct of business. If you would like to 
file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either 
before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements 
regarding any of the items on the agenda, you should contact Elena

[[Page 53192]]

Melchert at the telephone number listed above. You must make your 
request for an oral statement at least three business days prior to the 
meeting, and reasonable provisions will be made to include all who wish 
to speak. Public comment will follow the three minute rule.
    Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying within 60 days at the following Web site: 
www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/advisorycommittees/UnconventionalResources.html.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on August 27, 2012.
LaTanya R. Butler,
Acting Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-21549 Filed 8-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 01, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 01, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17D0115. MARQUISE ALI ROBBINS v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

16CV253
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-08-00342-CR

ROBERT VINCENT ENRIGHT, SR.,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 1

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court No. T200701154

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Robert Vincent Enright, Sr. was found guilty of a Class C Misdemeanor in the 

justice of the peace court and appealed that decision to the county court at law for a trial 

de novo. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 45.042 (Vernon 2006). He was found 

guilty by a jury in the county court at law and a fine of $50 was imposed. Enright has 

attempted to appeal that judgment.

In a letter, the Clerk of this Court notified Enright and the State that we 

questioned our jurisdiction because, among other reasons, the appeal was from a trial 

de novo in the county court at law from an inferior court’s ruling and requested a 
Enright v. State Page 2

response from both parties. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 4.03 (Vernon 2005). 

Each party has provided a response.

We have no jurisdiction of appeals from a trial de novo in the county court at law 

of an inferior court’s ruling if the fine imposed in the county court at law does not 

exceed $100. Id. The fine imposed in the county court at law was only $50. Enright’s 

response to our letter did not present any argument that we have jurisdiction of this 

appeal which overcomes the above described limits placed upon this Court’s 

jurisdiction by the legislature.

Accordingly, his appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3. 

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed March 25, 2009

Do not publish 

[CR25]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1316

In Re: RANDY L. THOMAS, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:07-cv-00200-GCM)

Submitted: May 1, 2009 Decided: June 10, 2009

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randy L. Thomas, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Randy L. Thomas petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order vacating the district court’s February 13, 2008 order imposing a prefiling injunction, compelling the state court to vacate a child custody order, and addressing claims raised in prior actions. We conclude that Thomas is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. &

Loan Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Mandamus may not be used as “a substitute for appeal.” In re United Steelworkers , 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). This court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials, Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County , 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), and does not have jurisdiction to review final state court orders, District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). The relief sought by Thomas is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We

23 dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

FREDY AND MARIA BOTELLO,

 Appellants,

v.

FELIX AND ROSIE SALINAS,

 Appellees. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-14-00201-CV

Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 2

of Travis County, Texas

(TC # C-1-CV-14-003359)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be 

dismissed for want of prosecution, in accordance with the opinion of this Court. We therefore 

dismiss the appeal. We further order that because Appellant is indigent, no order regarding costs 

is made. We further order that this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, J., and Barajas, C.J., (Senior Judge)

(Barajas, C.J., Senior Judge, sitting by assignment, not participating)
Exhibit 99.2





Certificate 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 CPAC, Inc. ('CPAC') on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas J. Weldgen, Chief Financial Officer of CPAC, 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 CPAC, Inc.





/s/ Thomas J. Weldgen                             Thomas J. Weldgen
Chief Financial Officer
November 12, 2002









---

90
REF ID:A43207 

fOP SECRElJ 

MEMO ROUTING SI.IP 

2 

3 

4 

REMARKS 

NEYER USE FOR APPROVALS, DISAPPROVALS, 

CONCURRENCES, OR SIM/UR ACTIONS 

INITIALS 

DATE 

. CIRCULATE 

COORDINATION 

FILE 

INFORMATION 

NECESSARY ACTION 

NarE AND RETURN 

SEE ME 

SIGNATURE 

eclas ified a d a roved for release b NSA on 07-25-2014 

FROM NAME 

ORGANIZATIO 

DD FORM 95 ReplaoesDAAGOFOi'ilt.SllO,Upr,ctJ;alid'Aj..,· . : ~..f 0 ;ro:· -;_ I FEB 50 . Form 12, 10 Nov 47, wklcb Jn8IJ' be~. . . . .. ;. ..... . ,,. . . .· .. .. ·. , ____ .... ··..... .. ,__ .... · ·_":; )_.:... .. ·<··f:i:_~;,..;"-°/,1...;:./l":·'/.:-··,7.;.:,.,: -:-':...:-~ ..... ·_ -~--· 
REF ID:A43207 

. MEM8 ROUTING SLIP I NEVER USE FOR APPROVALS, DISAPPROVALS, 

CONCURRENCE:S, OR SIMILAR ACTIONS 

INITIALS 

DATE 

1 ~TITLE , :l) E R.. ,_.ifZ--J-~, . 

2 

3 

4 

REMARKS 

FROM NAME OR TITLE 

ORGANIZATION AND LOCATI 

DD I F

FOERaM•o 9 5 Replaces DA AGO Form 895, 1 Apr 48, and Al!'BQ ., Form 12, 10 Nov 47, whl.oh ll1ll1' Ile used. 

CIRCULATE 

COORDINATION 

FILE 

INFORMATION 

NECESSARY 

ACTION 

NOTE ANG RETURN 

SEE ME 

SIGNATURE
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 98-51101

Summary Calendar

_____________________

ETHEL WALTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BAYLOR UNIVERSITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(W-97-CV-264)

_________________________________________________________________

May 7, 1999

Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ethel Walton appeals the adverse summary judgment in her ADEA

and Title VII action against Baylor University.

As is more than well-established, we review a summary judgment

de novo, applying the same standard as the district court. E.g.,

OHM Remediation Services v. Evans Cooperage Co., Inc., 116 F.3d

1574, 1579 (5th Cir. 1997). Such judgment is appropriate where

“there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the

moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." FED. R.

CIV. P. 56(c).
2

Walton claims that various transfers, changes in job duties,

and leaves with pay constituted adverse employment action; that

Baylor’s proffered reasons for these decisions are a pretext for

age and race discrimination; and that she was retaliated against

for filing a complaint with the EEOC. Pursuant to our de novo

review of the record and review of the briefs, summary judgment was

proper, for essentially the reasons stated by the district court.

See Walton v. Baylor University, No. W-97-CA-264, mem. op.

(W.D.Tex. Sept. 24, 1998).

 AFFIRMED
Letter Agreement between Exa Corporation and FMR LLC



 Exhibit 10.10 
 FMR LLC 
 82 Devonshire Street 

Boston, MA 02109 

April 12, 2010 
 Exa
Corporation 
 55 Network Drive 

Burlington, MA 01803 USA 
 Attn: Stephen Remondi

 Re: Loan and Security Agreement 

Dear Stephen: 
 Reference is made to the Loan
and Security Agreement dated July 14, 2009, as amended to date (the “Loan Agreement”) pursuant to which FMR LLC (“FMR”) agreed to make certain loans to Exa Corporate (“Exa”). Pursuant to the Loan Agreement, all
outstanding loans are to be repaid in full on or before April 30, 2010 (the “Maturity Date”) 
 Exa has informed FMR that a
Funding Event, as defined in the Loan Agreement, has not yet occurred and that, while Exa is in the process of arranging third party financing, it will not be able to repay all outstanding loans from FMR prior to the Maturity Date. Therefore, Exa is
requiring an extension of the Maturity Date. Upon repayment prior to the Maturity Date, as extended, and except as provided below, (x) the Loan Agreement will be terminated, and (y) FMR will release all collateral that it has been granted
in support of outstanding loans. 
 We are writing to confirm our agreement to the following: 

(1) The Maturity Date is hereby extended to the earlier to occur of (i) May 28, 2010 or (ii) a Funding Event. 

(2) Exa acknowledges that, following Exa’s repayment of outstanding loans prior to the Maturity Date, (i) FMR has no intention
to provide further financing to Exa, and (ii) Exa has no expectation of any such future financing. 
 (3) In addition to
those provisions of the Loan Agreement that are intended to survive repayment pursuant to their explicit terms: 
 (a)
Section 6.8 of the Loan Agreement will remain in full force and effect except as follows: 
 i. the provisions thereof
shall apply, without limitation in time, to the first Equity Financing (as defined therein) that occurs following the date hereof; provided that, for the purposes hereof, an Equity Financing shall include a series of related transactions that
otherwise constitute an Equity Financing, and 







 ii. Lender’s rights under Section 6.8 shall only apply if, immediately prior to
such first Equity Financing, Lender, together with all of its Affiliates (including, for the avoidance of doubt, Fidelity Ventures, Ltd, and Fidelity Investors Limited Partnership), owns not less than Twenty (20%) Percent of Borrower’s
capital stock, on a fully diluted basis. 
 (b) Section 6.9 of the Loan Agreement will remain in full force and effect.

 FMR will remain as a shareholder of Exa following repayment of outstanding loans and termination of the Loan Agreement; and nothing contained
herein or elsewhere will affect any rights that FMR and or its Affiliates have as shareholders of Exa. 
 Kindly confirm the foregoing by your
signature in the below indicated space. 
 Very truly yours, 
 FMR LLC 
  

			
	By:	 	 





	Its:	 	Treasurer

 Agreed to and acknowledged by: 
 Exa Corporation 
  

			
	By:	 	 





	Its:	 	

 NYK 1290159-1.009900.0011