alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## q?FpEA~MNEY GICCMERAL OFTEXAS

AUSTIN. TEXAS 78711 March31, 1966
Honorable SamCleveland 

## mf3trictAttorney Stephenvllle, Texas, 76401 Re: Construction of Sections 148and 149of Article 6701d, Vernon's Civil Statutes, in reference to whether the newCode of Criminal Prooedure would prevent the prosecution for failure to appear in Dear Sir: a traffiic violation.

In your retient opinion request you state:

.“Artiale 67016, Section 148, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, provides that a person arrested for aviolation of some traffio regulation, under the Act may obtain his release by signing a duplicate copy of notice to appear before the court at someappointed time after ten days.

‘Article 6701d, Se&ion 149, protides that failure to appear ia court as agreed undex the terms’~of the preceding SeotlOn oonstt;itutes another violation if willfully done. "AaI understand these two sections, after proper complaints have been filed both for the trafflo violation and the failure to appear, warrants of arrest may be issued for the person charged.

"18 there anything in the NewCode of Criminal ,Proaedure or otherwise whioh would prevent the additional aharge of failure to appear from being filed andawarrant of arrest issued for that offense." In addition to Article 67018, Sections 148and 149, cited above, Article 792 of the Penal Code of the State of Texas also deals with the violation of aperson nho fail0 to appear as promised,

-3133-Honorable SamCleveland, page 2 (0-645)

The 1966 Codeof Criminal Proaedure does not amendor repeal Article 792 or anyof these sections of Artlole 6701d. Further, Artlalea 882, 883, 884 and 885 bf the old Code of Criminal Procedure, which dealt with warrants of arrest la Justice Courts, have been brought forward in the 1966 Codeof Crimllaal Procedure andcodified as Articles 45.16, 4!Ll7, 45.18 and45*19 with only lnslgnlflaant grammaraudpunctuation changes. It is the opinion of this office that the law is at111 the same as it r&a In respect to the isauaaoe of warrants for arrest for the failure to appear for a traffic violation, SUNNARY

There Is aothing In the 1966 Codeof Criminal Procedure whih would prevent the proseoutlon for fasilure to appear in a traffio vlolatlon'under Artiole 67016, Seotions 148and 149, Vernon's Civil Statutes, andArticle 792, Texas Peaal Codea .

REO/er Yours very truly,

Aaaiataut A%torney General

APPROVED: OPINIONCO~TTER ,, w. v. Cleppert, Chairman 

### Charlea

B. Sranner Lomy F. Znleaer Ronald 

### Luua PatBailey APPROVEDPOR!FHEA'EKUWEX~ENERAJJ By. T, B. Wright

-3134-
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6494

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JOHNNY ELIAS GONZALEZ, a/k/a Solo,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., District Judge. (3:08-cr-00134-RJC-DSC-18; 3:14-cv-00234-

RJC)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit 

Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnny Elias Gonzalez, Appellant Pro Se. Adam Christopher 

Morris, Kevin Zolot, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Jill 

Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North 

Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Johnny Elias Gonzalez seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (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)

(2012). 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) (2012). 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 

Gonzalez has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Gonzalez’s motion for appointment of counsel, 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
DIY. 53 Room 

All 

PaperNo. 

--rc.ilou rampeellal 

l~ I•.. ·._ ......._on"1 

"Tbo ('..........__.or Patent., 

Wulllnlton, D. c.," and not an1 ollclal b1 ume 

$DEPARTME~~-I_~~!~~ ~ NI vr '-"VM Ml:.l'C" .. 

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE . 

llflllcaUon noald ""' e• ..w _..,, .... of 1111a1 .... _., a•e llflllleanl 

WASHINGTON 

Please find below a communication from the EXAMINER in 

charg.e of thi~ application. ({) ~ 

•·• 11 ~"-·1 ~Commi.t.YioneroJPatmU, Applicant: William F. Friedman 

F.H.Vanderwerker & C.A.Rowe 

c/o Chief of the Air Corps 

Munitions Bldg. 

Washington, D. c. 

Ser. No. 682,096 

Filed July 25, 1933 

For Cryptographic System 

Responsive to amendment filed July 21~, 1935• 

The claims ere now 1-10, 12, 14-39· 

Claims 1-10, 12, 14-25, 35-39 appear allownble. 

The re~ection of claims 26-34 as wipa.tentable under 

the decisions is repeated and ma.de final. 

Examiner. 

@'pp roved for Release bv NSA on 09-13-2013 pursuant to E .0. 1352\3 

•
~

.i=';~r.c

~ --- =::!!gmj"ImlZll=~~-..",-"";,;:rr_':,,r_! %*, ~"Q: _ ••.... 4 i . ) .~. 4._

TOWN OF SILVER CITY BOXII88,SlLVERCITY,NE~~IC!>"~Z.(515(53~J~b"fAX(515)5J4.6111

2 a_-ilii••••----

October 10,2014

U.S. Department of Transportation,

Office of Aviation Analysis

EAS & Domestic Analysis Division

Attn: Scott Faulk

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Via email: sco/l.[aulk@dot.gov

Re: Essential Air Service for Silver City, New Mexico Area

Dear Mr. Faulk:

On behalf of the Town of Silver City, 1would like to express our appreciation of the

extension of time for proposals and comments on the proposals for Essential Air Service

for the Silver City area.

The Town of Silver City has had an opportunity to review the proposals submitted along

with receiving presentations and clarification from the airlines that made those proposals.

With this information added to our due diligence and public input, we recommend that

Boutique Air be awarded the Essential Air Service contract for the Silver City area.

With our recommendation, we waive our right to have a twin engine plane. We

appreciate your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Michael S. Morones

Mayor
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: November 10, 2016 106339 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK,

Respondent,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SPENCER L. DECOSTE,

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: September 20, 2016

Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Garry, Lynch and Rose, JJ.

__________

Elena Jaffe Tastensen, Saratoga Springs, for appellant.

Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Jaime A.

Douthat of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton

County (Ryan, J.), rendered October 29, 2013, which revoked

defendant's probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

In 2012, defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal

possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and was

sentenced to six months in jail and five years of probation. In

March 2013, after admitting to violating the terms of his

probation, his probation was amended to include his participation

in a drug court program. Defendant thereafter was sanctioned for

several violations of the drug court program between July 2013

and October 2013, but was continued on probation. Ultimately,

defendant was terminated from the drug court program and, as a

result, County Court revoked his probation and sentenced him to

two consecutive terms of two years in prison, to be followed by
-2- 106339 

one year of postrelease supervision.1 Defendant now appeals.

Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that his sentence

is harsh and excessive. We disagree. "A sentence that is within

the permissible statutory range will not be disturbed unless the

sentencing court abused its discretion or extraordinary

circumstances exist warranting a modification" (People v

Ciarleglio, 299 AD2d 571, 572 [2002] [citations omitted]; accord

People v Lowe, 53 AD3d 982, 983 [2008]). Here, the sentence

imposed was less than the maximum permissible sentence (see Penal

Law § 70.70 [2] [a] [iii]). Moreover, defendant was unable to

comply with the terms of his probation, despite being provided

numerous opportunities to do so. Under these circumstances, we

find no abuse of discretion nor any extraordinary circumstances

warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice

(see People v King, 93 AD3d 995, 996 [2012]; People v Smurphat,

91 AD3d 980, 981 [2012], lv denied 18 NY3d 962 [2012]).

Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Garry, Lynch and Rose, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court

1 Although County Court attempted to impose consecutive

periods of postrelease supervision, the periods merged by

operation of law (see Penal Law § 70.45 [5] [c]; People v Thorpe,

141 AD3d 927, 928 n 1 [2016]).
Exhibit 21 

Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp. Subsidiaries 

Bulgarian Entity 

PanTel Bulgaria EAD 

Hungarian Entities 

Invitel Távközlési Zrt. 

Invitel Technocom Kft.

Invitel Telecom Kft. 

The Netherlands Entities

HTCC Holdco I B.V. 

HTCC Holdco II B.V. 

Magyar Telecom B.V. 

The Netherlands Antilles Entity 

Matel Holdings N.V. 

Romanian Entities 

PanTel Romania SRL 

Euroweb Romania 

Serbian Entity 

Preduzece Kommunikacije PanTel d.o.o. Beograd

Slovakian Entity 

PanTel Slovakia s.r.o. 

Slovenian Entity 

PanTel Telekommunikacije in Kommunikacijed.o.o.
MEMO 

maRlllllATIClll 

FILI 

INFORMA110ll 

NOl"E: AND 

RE1'URN 

SEE ME 

~·~ e. .....-. 

~ eOo.~·"<e 

~~~?~ ~~~--~l h-. .. L \,. \L c.l. c ......... o .. $.- .}.Jr.r-r 

"j.._... Q . ..,~ "\.~ ~ Ir.- ........ j .......... ~ \..... 

.u.~ ..,..,... o-l-~ 10 "''f-")-~ 

FROM NAME OR TIT\.E 

~ 

l§'wued for R§.!ease by NSA on 10-25-2013 pursuant to E .o. 1352e
REF ID:A485483 

!Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 11-07-2013 pursuant to E. 0. 1352§ 

- - -- - - -- - -- -- -----~- -- - --
REF ID:A485483 

• : ; )\ 1 1

· · 11 .-, 1 rf\ I ( i ~ '-.._":.;:./ t..:=,, \,~I I: l, i ' . 

FROM ALUSNA BATAVIA FOR ACTION OPNAV RRRRR 

DATE 5 DEC 1941 

DECODED BY KALAIDJIAN 

PARAPHRASED BY PURDY 

¢J1¢.3¢ cR¢222 

FROM THORPE FOR MILES WA..tt DEPT. CODE INTERCEPT:- JAPAN WILL NOTIFY 

HER CONSUlS OF WAR DECISION IN HER FOREIGN BROADCASTS AS WEATHER REPORT 

f AT END.L \\~....;...YI.ti EAST WIND -1~-RAIN UNITED STATF.S; l~"-' NORTH WIND 

"""° ~k>~ 

CLOUDY RUSSIA; WEST 

~ 

* J... ::i s ~ \ °Y'-0 ~AA.ti... ) WIND CLEAR ENGLAND WITH ATTACK ON THAILAND MALAY AND DUTCH EAST INDIES. l WILL BE FlEPEATED '!WIC~OR ~y US_E CD1-1!'.A.S;'l_DIRFJ:TIONS ONLY. IN THIS CASE 

WORDS WILL BE INTRODUCED FIVE TIMES IN GENERAL TEXT;~ , - .. . . ··----···· ' ~ ~ ~ ~ 

DISTRIBUTION: 

WAR DEPT .•••••• ACTION. 

RECORD COPY: •• 2¢G ••••••• X 

. ~~A<1~ ("'O 

,-j:b ")..~~-+ 

FILES: CN0 •••••• .2¢0P •••••• 2¢A ••••• 

SHOW OPOO •••••••
USCIB 2/'JO \f'~iff)iJB BOCUi~ eoNT AIW 60B:S WeflB rii*'fEfl!kL 

28 Ka7 1953 

Subject. 

Reterance 

Balaae ot CCM to the Turld.ah Govemmaat. 

USCIB 2/28 dat.ed 14 April 1953. 

Chaiman9 USCIBta0 D!Dll0rand1111 cm the above subject.., 

which was p!'Cllllllgat.ed to USCIB members under cover ot 

tha raterence. 

Enclosure 

LSIB/156/5.3 dt.d 

8 Mq 1953. 

USCIB. 2/30 

RUFtJS L. TAYLOR 

Capt.a1n, u. Set Nav 

B:ecutive Secret&J7• USCIB 

24 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 06-02-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352\3 

TOP SECRET 
... W" inti; 'at H"iasn H111•i•3 rc:l'tll ,. a sad aalth01iood to IC&ifc ~e iufoaaation 1epo1ta1 hEiela • 

LORIXll 

8th Ma1'9 19S3· 

:u!IB/1S6/SJ 

Cha11'iMD, EO 3.3(h)(2) 

United States Carmmicatione Intel.l.igcce Board,, PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

. .LoS.!,,Bo baa oomddered 7GUr mmorandUla datfd 8th April · respect.ing the release to the Turkish Govemmmt .of C.CoMe 

equipmmte tor diplomatic cC!l!llftmicat.icms (CIB 00037). \. . 

2o The Board desires to eacpresa it.a appreQ1ation\ of the tullne~s ot u .. s.c.1.B.' s apl anation, and notes the assurance · givm in para 9 cm.ceming the deairabllit.;r ot pzd.or 

consultation in these matt.era. 

3o The view npre88Gd in para S - that the imporliance 

1

ot th .. ·-~ the ........scat.ioml at nro \ ia 

is idz'ticil th tbi\ hild bi LoSoloBe ·. 

4o The Boa.rd apprec1at.es that. u.s.c.I.B. 1• not neces~ t.be final author.lt7 1n the deciaicma to assist 

t.bird part.ies with c~c asaiat.anceo The. posit.ion of 

L .. S.loBo 111 relatim to other U.I. aut.llorit.ies is ·aind lar. 

!•II .....__,Ch&li'iiii ___ g_ ..... 

London Signal Intelli.gence Board. 

Enclosure with USCIB: 2/'JO dated 28 Mq' 195.30 

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY Form 781-<10SC 

1 Jul 52 TOP SECRET CANOE
~~"\J:A71B'l5 . .------'·· ·--·-

~~-'-'~.-,tir tl~~ ,,.J ~- ,, _ 11-~-~--- ~-. ~ .\ . .,.,.~t...t.L~ 1. tJ ,,. ...... ~' .L1 

·/ 1 ~-.J Cn·. I :;i. '-1..A..'-·/- 'J ~ • · ~>'U...., 

~ ·~v' ~· S. ll-~ 0 #Je ~D3.J- ........ 

~· t>. '( 

eclassified and approved for release by NSA on 06-20-2014 

ursuantto E.O. 13526 
J)_!\'.!.'E 

n~ICE OF THE DIR OP COMMUNICATIONS RF.S~~ROt 

.. . :• 

- --7 

w. F. l''r-1edJDB.ri " ..... • • .... • • • • • • .a. .. ....__.... 

fl.9.:-k RhoAda ..... "" ....... , ........ . ,-:~Dt L. D~ C-l1111P\l:!•1e .. , •••••• 

:l.!t>. T. .ii'. fravcet t .. - •••••••••• 

. : • B. ilu,r:tt. • • .. . .. .. I f • 6 ....... Ill •• 

- -

/. .· ii. Pct ~C'lP: i "J l • .• , .... ~ •. 

/ 'l°', Mil le!"'. • " • • .. ... .. ............. .. r: ii· ~loo.pi"; 

l'i~tir1f"!ti 

• J!. 'OT, A. ". ri ~·-·'t''-"'nn • l .. ~ .•.. 

r .. ,.. • R. o . ~ 11 '!?n. . •• ~ . , ...... i ·t.. J-. G. Pel land- ••••••••• • • • ----

i. 

; Aa d..!.SCW'Jllled 

• Atl 1'8QU~ ;t ti~"! 

J CoDCUPI'&: ;. "!-=-

.;.IU- ':I!'~ l:~ ,-.::-• • -._ - .: "- - _,.,,. 11'--.c.:.:.•a:~·. 

1 1 intormatton & recurn 

J inrorma~ion & rile 

l I Recommendation 

--

~ !.,.-Signature lf app~ved •V1 Your action &,- ~ ~b~ , ; i Info upon which t o;;:se reply 

____ ..,,_ ) - ( / 

.-..-,
REF ID:A62461 

l.. In view ot the prolonged abaenc• at Mr. l'ric&nan, the Exctcutive 

Seoretar,y of thet IBA Seient:l.t'ic Adv11ory Board and the Cll&irmn of tho 

lxecutive Group tar 1'oe.rd. Afta1re1 thi• ottice 1• r:aot 1n po•i'tion to 

11alte tbl.t dec1a1ana implied 1n Comlnent l flt tho tvo attached D/F 'a~ 

2. It b to be noted that, in accor&ul.cfl Vi.th RSA Qener&.l Ord.era 

llUldber 26, tlated 13 April 1954, Dr. lCullback ia the appointed Vice Chair .. -.n ~the Exoctutive Group tor Board Attaira. 

l:A.Y D."'1IH6 

Seoretary to Spec:lal Asaiatant 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 06-17-2014 pursuant to E.O. 1352e 

...... """ ·-. - - --
**Exhibit 3.7**

 

**CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT**

**OF**

**THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION**

**OF**

**ISCO INTERNATIONAL, INC.**

 

**ISCO INTERNATIONAL, INC.**, (the “Corporation”), a corporation organized and existing under of the GeneralCorporation Law of the State of Delaware, does hereby certify: 

 

**FIRST**: That the board of directors of the Corporation (the “Board of Directors”), at a duly convened meeting of the Board of Directors, duly adopted a resolution declaring advisable the amendment of the Certificate ofIncorporation of the Corporation and submitted the same to the stockholders of the Corporation for approval. The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as follows: 

 

**RESOLVED**, that Section 7.3 of the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation be amended and restated in its entiretyas follows: 

 

“7.3 **Term of Office.** The directorsshall each be elected to hold office for a term of one (1) year expiring at the next annual meeting of stockholders and until their successors have been elected and qualified.” 

 

**SECOND**: That the stockholders of the Corporation have duly approved the aforesaid amendment in accordance with theprovisions of Section 211 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware. 

 

**THIRD**: That the aforesaid amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware. 

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, ISCO International, Inc. has caused thisCertificate of Amendment to be signed by an authorized officer this 15th day of December, 2004.
Message



---



##### 

Message



---

##### 

Message



---

##### 

Message



---

##### 

Message



---

##### 

Message



---

##### 

Message



---

##### 

Message



---

##### 

Message



---

##### 

Message



---

##### 

Message



---

##### 

Message



---

##### 

Message



---

##### 

Message



---

##### 

Message



---

##### 

Message



---

##### 

Message



---

##### 

Message



---

##### 

Message



---

##### 

Message



---



##### 

Message



---

##### 

Message



---

##### 

Message



---

##### 

Message



---

##### 

Message



---

##### 

Message



---

##### 

Message



---

##### 

Message



---

##### 

Message



---

##### 

Message



---

#####
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1998
<CASH>                                           1,354
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  111,863
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (5,740)
<INVENTORY>                                     52,332
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               194,547
<PP&E>                                         374,386
<DEPRECIATION>                               (133,994)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 531,834
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          117,231
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           99,549
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        27,312
<OTHER-SE>                                      76,324
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   531,834
<SALES>                                        798,327
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               801,285
<CGS>                                          635,657
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  635,657
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               162,808
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,618
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,656
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,726)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,655)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,071)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,071)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.29)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.29)
<FN>
<F1>FOR PURPOSES OF THIS EXHIBIT, PRIMARY MEANS BASIC.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                               EXHIBIT 10.07(iii)

<PAGE>
 
                                    FORM OF
                                   AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                               CUSTOMER AGREEMENT

     This Customer Agreement Amendment ("Amendment") is made as of this 1st day
of [MONTH, YEAR] by and between [THE FUND] (the "Fund") and Merrill Lynch
Futures Inc.

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

     WHEREAS, the parties hereto entered into a Customer Agreement relating to
the purchase and sale of commodity futures and forward contracts and commodity
options (the "Customer Agreement");

     WHEREAS, the parties hereto have agreed to reduce the brokerage commissions
paid by the Fund to Merrill Lynch Futures Inc., the Fund's commodity broker,
pursuant to the Customer Agreement and wish to amend the Customer Agreement
accordingly;

     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants
contained in the Customer Agreement and herein, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree to amend the Customer
Agreement as follows:

     1.  Brokerage Commissions. Beginning [DATE, YEAR] the brokerage commissions
         ---------------------                                                  
payable by the Fund to Merrill Lynch Futures Inc. will be reduced to ______ of
1% of month-end Net Assets, before reduction for such monthly brokerage
commissions and any New Profits Account allocation but after the crediting of
interest income received during the month (a ____% annual rate). Such brokerage
commissions shall not include any administrative fee paid directly to Merrill
Lynch Investment Partners Inc.

     2.  Amendment.  This Amendment may not be amended except by the written
         ---------                                                          
consent of each of the parties hereto.
 
     3.  Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in one or more
         ------------                                                
counterparts, each of which shall, however, together constitute one and the same
documents.

                                      -1-
<PAGE>
 
          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed by the parties
hereto as of the day and year first above written.

 
                              [THE FUND]

                              BY:   MERRILL LYNCH INVESTMENT
                                    PARTNERS INC., General Partner


                              BY:   ________________________________
                                    Name:
                                    Title:
 


                              MERRILL LYNCH FUTURES INC.
 

                              BY:   ________________________________
                                    Name:
                                    Title:

                                      -2-