alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-4.22



 Exhibit 4.22 
 SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT 
 TO THE EXCLUSIVE TECHNICAL CONSULTING AND
SERVICE AGREEMENT 
 This Supplementary Agreement (“Supplementary Agreement”) is made and entered into on
January 5, 2012 (“Effective date”) in Shanghai, the People’s Republic of China, by and between: 
 Party A:
Shanghai Zhengtu Information Technology Co., Ltd. 
 Address: 2/FL, Building No.29, 396 Guilin Road, Shanghai, the People’s Republic of
China 
 Party B: Shanghai Giant Network Technology Co., Ltd. (Old Name: Shanghai Zhengtu Network Technology Co., Ltd.) 

Address: Room 708, Building No.29, 396 Guilin Road, Shanghai, the People’s Republic of China 

WHEREAS, 
  

	1.	Party A and Party B entered into the Exclusive Technical Consulting and Service Agreement (the “Original Agreement”) on September 7, 2006 in
Shanghai. According to the Original Agreement, Party B agrees that, unless with prior written approval from Party A, Party B shall not hire any third party to provide to Party B any technical support listed in Attachment I of the Original Agreement
or any similar technical support; 

  

	2.	Party B has reached an agreement with Shanghai Zhengju Information Technology Co., Ltd. (“Zhengju Information”) that Party B shall be responsible for
the operation of ZT Online 2, which was developed by and the intellectual property rights of which was held by Zhengju Information. 

 NOW, THEREFORE, adhering to the principles of equality and mutual benefit, and after friendly negotiations, the Parties confirm as follows: 

 

	1.	Party A agrees Party B to hire Zhengju Information to provide Party B with technical support listed in Attachment I of the Original Agreement or other similar technical
support, relating to ZT Online 2. Party B shall sign the ZT Online 2 Exclusive Technical Consulting and Service Agreement with Zhengju Information. 

  

	2.	Party B guarantees and promises that Party A shall have the right to request Party B and Zhengju Information at any time to terminate the ZT Online 2 Exclusive
Technical Consulting and Service Agreement and any other relevant agreements, without incurring any legal liability 

  

	3.	This Supplementary Agreement shall become effective immediately upon sealed by the Parties. 


 

			
	Party A: Shanghai Zhengtu Information Technology Co., Ltd.	 	Party B: Shanghai Giant Network Technology Co., Ltd.
# C_2016146EN.01000801.xml

| 26.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/8

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2016/C 146/08)

Image

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are authorised to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country
  : The Republic of San Marino

Issuing country

Subject of commemoration
  : 550th anniversary of the death of Donatello

Subject of commemoration

Description of the design
  : The design depicts, in the foreground on the left, a portrait of David, being a detail of the bronze sculpture by Donatello. At centre top, the mintmark ‘R’; on the right, the name of the issuing country ‘SAN MARINO’; at bottom right, the inscription ‘Donatello’, the dates ‘1466-2016’ and, in the centre, the initials of the artist ‘MB’.

Description of the design

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued
  : 85 000 coins

Number of coins to be issued

Date of issue
  :

Date of issue

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---
# C_2015381EN.01000101.xml

| 16.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

(2015/C 381/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 371, 9.11.2015

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 363, 3.11.2015

OJ C 354, 26.10.2015

OJ C 346, 19.10.2015

OJ C 337, 12.10.2015

OJ C 328, 5.10.2015

OJ C 320, 28.9.2015

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
Order entered November 30, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00693-CR

JACOBO RAFAEL REYES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 397th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 065987

ORDER

We REINSTATE this appeal.

By order dated October 26, 2016, we abated the appeal for a hearing to determine 

whether appellant was indigent and in need of court-appointed representation. In response, the 

trial court has filed a supplemental record containing findings from the hearing, including that 

appellant is not indigent but needs thirty days in which to retain his own attorney. We ADOPT

the trial court’s findings and GRANT appellant thirty days in which to retain counsel and make 

arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record. 

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2794 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.2794

                    One Hundred Seventeenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
          the third day of January, two thousand and twenty two

                                 An Act

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase automatic maximum 
coverage under the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance program and the 
     Veterans' Group Life Insurance program, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Supporting Families of the Fallen 
Act''.
SEC. 2. INCREASE IN AUTOMATIC MAXIMUM COVERAGE UNDER SERVICEMEMBERS' 
GROUP LIFE INSURANCE AND VETERANS' GROUP LIFE INSURANCE.
    (a) In General.--Section 1967(a)(3)(A)(i) of title 38, United 
States Code, is amended by striking ``$400,000'' and inserting 
``$500,000''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the later of--
        (1) the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of 
    this Act; or
        (2) the date on which the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
    determines that--
            (A) the amount for which a member will be insured pursuant 
        to the amendment made by subsection (a) and the premiums for 
        such amount are administratively and actuarially sound for the 
        Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance program under subchapter 
        III of chapter 19 of title 38, United States Code, and the 
        Veterans' Group Life Insurance program under section 1977 of 
        such title; and
            (B) the increase in such amount carried out pursuant to the 
        amendment will not result in such programs operating at a loss.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                SUBSIDIARIES OF TUMBLEWEED COMMUNICATIONS CORP.
                              AS OF MARCH 31, 2001

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        DATE OF       COUNTRY OF
                    SUBSIDIARY                       INCORPORATION   INCORPORATION
---------------------------------------------------  -------------   -------------
<S>                                                  <C>             <C>
Tumbleweed Communications K.K.                        10/27/98          Japan
Tumbleweed Communications, Ltd.                       02/23/99           U.K.
Tumbleweed Communications GmbH                        05/21/99         Germany
Tumbleweed Communications S.A.                        05/25/99          France
Tumbleweed Communications Pty. Ltd.                   01/20/00        Australia
Tumbleweed Communications Aktiebolag (AB)             03/14/00          Sweden
Tumbleweed Communications BV                          03/23/00       Netherlands
Tumbleweed Communications Ltd.--Hong Kong             05/22/00        Hong Kong
Tumbleweed Communications GmbH--Switzerland           08/08/00       Switzerland
Worldtalk Communications Corporation                  01/26/96          U.S.A.
Interface Systems, Inc.                               01/15/98          U.S.A.
</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
        (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
                               UNITED STATES CODE)


Pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b)  of  section  1350,  chapter  63 of  title  18,  United  States  Code),  the
undersigned  officer  of  Multinet  International  Corporation,  Inc.,  a Nevada
corporation  (the  "Company"),  does  hereby  certify,  that to the  best of his
knowledge:

The  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB for the  quarter  ended June 30, 2002 (the
"Form  10-QSB") of the Company fully complies with the  requirements  of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information  contained
in the Form 10-QSB  fairly  presents,  in all material  respects,  the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: August 16th, 2002

/s/ David V. Lott
----------------------------
David V. Lott
Sole Officer/Director
I, David L. Osborn, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly
report on Form 10-QSB of Hudson's Grill International, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this
report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the
financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. I am responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and have:

> a) designed such disclosure controls
>   and procedures to ensure that material information relating to
>   the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
>   known to us by others within those entities, particularly during
>   the period in which this report is being prepared;
>   b) evaluated the effectiveness
>   of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of
>   the end of the periods presented in this report (the "Evaluation
>   Date"); and
>   c) presented in this report our
>   conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
>   and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying
officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation,
to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

> a) all significant deficiencies
>   in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely
>   affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize
>   and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
>   auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
>   b) any fraud, whether or not
>   material, that involves management or other employees who have
>   a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over
>   financial reporting.



|Date: November 8, 2006 | /s/David L. Osborn

    [Signature]

    President
|---------------------- | --------------------------------------------------

f\sec\o01.060930
Affirmed an d Memorandum Opinion filed October 27 , 2011

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 1 0

- 00 878

- CR NO. 14

- 10

- 00879

- CR NO. 14

- 10

- 00880

- CR

____________ ORVEL WAYNE SPECK , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 122nd District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 09CR1461, 09CR1462, & 09CR1463



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant entered a plea of guilty to three counts of intoxication manslaughter . On August 5, 2010, the trial court sentenced a ppellant to confinement for 20 years for each

count with the sentences to run consecutively . Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellant ’ s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirement s of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of2

the record and demonstrating why ther e are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
A copy of counsel ’ s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than forty

- five days has passed and no pro se response has been filed.
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel ’ s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record

. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State
, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chi ef Justice Hedges and Justices Anderson and Christopher. Do Not Publish

— T ex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
# C_2016266EN.01000202.xml

| 22.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 266/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 266/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8051 — CVC/Tipico Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 266/03)

On 18 July 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8051. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8051. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
##### 



Exhibit 10.3
 MARINER ENERGY, INC.
SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
 Section 1. Purpose of the Plan.
  Section 2. Definitions.




---



##### 



2




---



##### 



Section 3. Administration.
  Section 4. Shares Available for Awards.
 Shares Available.
 Sources of Shares Deliverable Under Awards.
 Adjustments.
 3




---



##### 



Section 5. Eligibility.
  Section 6. Awards.
 Options.
 Exercise Price.
 Time and Method of Exercise.
 Incentive Stock Options.
 4




---



##### 



Restricted Stock.
 Dividends.
 Registration.
 Forfeiture and Restrictions Lapse.
 Transfer Restrictions.
 5




---



##### 



General.
 Awards May Be Granted Separately or Together.
 Limits on Transfer of Awards.
    Terms of Awards.
 Share Restrictions.
 Consideration for Grants.
 Delivery of Shares or other Securities and Payment by Participant of
Consideration.
 6




---



##### 



Unusual Transactions or Events.
    7




---



##### 



Section 7. Amendment and Termination.
  Amendments to the Plan.
 Amendments to Awards.
 Compliance.
 Section 8. General Provisions.
 No Rights to Awards.
 No Right to Employment or Retention.
 8




---



##### 



Governing Law.
 Severability.
 Other Laws.
 No Trust or Fund Created.
 No Fractional Shares.
 Headings.
 Section 9. Effective Date.
  Section 10. Term of the Plan.
  9




---



##### 



10
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: December 1, 2016 107971 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK,

Respondent,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BRIAN N. JOHNSON,

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: October 11, 2016

Before: Peters, P.J., Lynch, Devine, Clark and Aarons, JJ.

__________

Robert Didio & Associates, Kew Gardens (Robert D. Didio of

counsel), for appellant.

Stephen K. Cornwell Jr., District Attorney, Binghamton

(Stephen D. Ferri of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Peters, P.J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County

(Cawley, J.), rendered February 28, 2013, convicting defendant

upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in the second

degree.

In satisfaction of several charges, defendant waived

indictment and entered a guilty plea to a superior court

information charging him with robbery in the second degree. He

was sentenced, as agreed, as a second felony offender to a prison

term of 13 years with five years of postrelease supervision, and

now appeals.
-2- 107971 

Defendant claims that County Court erred in declining to

order, sua sponte, a hearing to determine his competency in light

of certain statements that he made during his sentencing. A

defendant is presumed to be competent, and a trial court is

obligated to order a competency exam only if it has a "reasonable

ground for believing that a defendant [was] in such [a] state

. . . that he [or she was] incapable of understanding the charge,

[accusatory instrument] or proceedings or of making his [or her]

defense" due to a mental disease or defect (People v Tortorici,

92 NY2d 757, 765 [1999], cert denied 528 US 834 [1999] [internal

quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord People v Kot, 126

AD3d 1022, 1024 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1203 [2015]; see CPL

730.10 [1]). 

The record in this case fails to rebut the presumption of

competency. Defendant's remarks at sentencing, on which he now

relies, were suggestive of a political or obstructionist frame of

mind, not an incompetent one (see People v Dowling, 92 AD3d 1034,

1034-1035 [2012], lv denied 18 NY3d 993 [2012]; People v Daley,

302 AD2d 745, 746 [2003]), and defense counsel did not at any

point in the proceedings raise concerns regarding defendant's

competency or request a competency hearing. County Court did not

abuse its discretion by relying upon the available information,

including its own observations of defendant, the nature of his

remarks and the presentence report indicating that he had no

psychiatric history to conclude that there was no reasonable

basis to question his sanity or competency (see People v

Tortorici, 92 NY2d at 765-766; People v Kot, 126 AD3d at 1024-

1025; People v Stover, 123 AD3d 1232, 1233 [2014], lv denied 26

NY3d 936 [2015]; People v Duffy, 119 AD3d 1231, 1232-1233 [2014],

lv denied 24 NY3d 1043 [2014]). 

Lynch, Devine, Clark and Aarons, JJ., concur.
-3- 107971 

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
#### State vs. McDougal.

*Lwi'cmy or embezzlement.*

An indictment for *11*feloniously stealing” legal tender notes will not lie against one who, after selling and transferring a note and mortgage executed to him, and after notice of such transfer given to the mortgagor, received the amount due on the mortgage (paid in such legal tender notes), and converted it to his own use,

ON EXCEPTIONS from *Marquette*County.

This cause was brought up on exceptions from the circuit court for Marquette county, where a yerdict of guilty had been found against the defendant on an indictment for larceny.

*The Attorney General,*for the state.

Downer, J.

The jury found the defendant guilty as charged in the third count of the indictment. That count charged the defendant with feloniously stealing legal tender notes of the value of $240, the property of Robert Wilson. The defendant had sold and transferred to Wilson a note and mortgage made to Mm by Mary Allison, and after the transfer, and notice thereof to the mortgagor, the defendant received the money thereon, and appropriated the same to his own use ; and this is the alleged larceny. The evidence is conflicting as to whether he had or had not authority from Wilson to collect the money of Mrs. Allison. If he had not, the legal tender notes were not the property of Wilson; if he had, the defendant, by appropriating them to his own use, did not commit the crime of simple larceny, as charged, but, if any crime, that of embezzlement.

*By the Court.*— The verdict is set aside, and a *venire de novo*awarded.
---

---

# EXHIBIT 15.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8, File
No. 333-101990, File No. 333-11560 and File No. 333-125064 pertaining to certain employee
stock option plans of Top Image Systems Ltd. of our report dated March 26, 2006 with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of Top Image Systems Ltd. as of December
31, 2005, included in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Top Image Systems Ltd. for the
year ended December 31, 2005.

|                 |                                 
|---------------- | --------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|Tel-Aviv, Israel | Kost Forer Gabbay & Kasierer    
|March 27, 2006   | A Member of Ernst & Young Global



---

---