alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

                      AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO PLEDGE AGREEMENT

This Amendment No. 3 dated as of September 22, 1998 ("Amendment") to that
certain Pledge Agreement ("Pledge Agreement") dated the 10th day of September
1996 by and between Imperial Bank ("Secured Party") and National Information
Group, formerly known as National Insurance Group, ("Pledgor") as previously
amended ("Pledge Agreement"). All capitalized terms used herein, and not defined
herein shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Pledge Agreement.

                             INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

A.   Pledgor has changed its name from National Insurance Group to National 
     Information Group.

B.   The Secured Party and the Pledgor desire to change the name of the Pledgor
     in the Pledge Agreement.

Accordingly, the parties hereto agree that the Pledge Agreement is hereby
amended as follows:

1.   Whenever the name National Insurance Group or Pledgor appears in the 
     Agreement it shall mean National Information Group.

2.   Except as provided above, the Pledge Agreement remains unchanged and the
     parties hereby confirm that the Pledge Agreement as herein amended is in 
     full force and effect.

National Information Group                  Imperial Bank
"Pledgor"                                   "Bank"

By: /s/ ROBERT P. BARBAROWICZ               By: /s/ [SIG]
    ----------------------------------          -------------------------------
    Robert P. Barbarowicz
                                            Title: Assistant Vice President
Title: Executive Vice President                    
       General Counsel and Secretary
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 7, 2018

No. 04-18-00364-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.L.T., AND A.C.T., CHILDREN,

From the 83rd Judicial District Court, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 33615

Honorable Robert Cadena, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s brief was originally due on September 28, 2018. Appellant did not file his 

brief or a motion for extension of time by that date. On October 10, 2018, we issued an order 

directing appellant to file his brief and a written response on or before October 22, 2018. 

Appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file his response and brief, requesting until 

October 29, 2018 to file the response and brief. We granted appellant’s motion. On October 29, 

2018, appellant filed a subsequent motion for extension of time to file his response and brief, 

requesting his deadline be extended by fourteen days. We granted appellant’s motion and set the 

deadline for filing his response and brief as November 13, 2018. Appellant has not filed his 

response or brief.

Accordingly, we order appellant to file his response and appellant’s brief on or before 

December 17, 2018. 

Failure to file appellant’s response and brief by December 17, 2018, will result in 

dismissal of this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

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

court on this 7th day of December, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 14 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 14

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
    permit the Congress to limit contributions and expenditures in 
                     elections for Federal office.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 1997

Mr. Engel introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
    permit the Congress to limit contributions and expenditures in 
                     elections for Federal office.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

    ``Section 1. The Congress shall have the power to set limits on 
expenditures made by individuals or entities in support of or in 
opposition to the nomination or election of any person to Federal 
office.
    ``Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to set limits on 
contributions made by individuals or entities in support of or in 
opposition to the nomination or election of any person to Federal 
office.
    ``Section 3. The Congress shall have the power to enforce by 
legislation the provision of this article.''.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Thursday, April 28, 2022.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gilbert Martinez at 1-888-912-1227 or (737) 800-4060.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be held Thursday, April 28, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. For more information, please contact Gilbert Martinez at 1-888-912-1227 or (737-800-4060), or write TAP Office 3651 S IH-35, STOP 1005 AUSC, Austin, TX 78741, or post comments to the website:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include various committee issues for submission to the IRS and other TAP related topics. Public input is welcomed.

Dated: April 4, 2022.

Kevin Brown,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2022-07449 Filed 4-6-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Honorable Je D. Hazlewood County

Attorney Canyon,

Texas Dear Mr. Hazlewoodr OpinionNo. O-175. Rer Ik.potismLaw This office is in reoeiptof your'telegram af January19 which reads as follows:

%nder~Artiole432 Psmal Code oaa Anhose 8011 married B's daughter

hire B to mrk for him?' Sinceyou refer to Article 432 o> the Penal Code,m d&l'assnm that the employnmt mentionedinmlvea thb employment of'sone

personrelated to a ooun+qr

offioial

in the degree .set

forth in your tqlugraa'andthat the proposed

employee

muld drpw ooqensation from* aoumty. Article 452 of the Penal Ccide provides, *B oftic& ofthi 5-b or any officerof any district, oounty, - . . &al+ appoint, or vote for,-or confinnths appointment lm 8.ny office,

pxition, clerkship, employmei&

or de, of any persm relateddthimthe seconddegreeby affinieg~or irithilr th.tIiiid degreebjr

oonsanguimity

to the person so appointed or So VOting,

. ; .mIititi he oalary,

fees, or compensation of suoh appointee

is to be paid for; direotly or indirectly,

out of or from public funds or fees of offioe of any kind or oharaoterwhatsoever."

As $d in 2 C. J. 378, blood relationa of the husband and Mood relations

of the uife are not relatedto each other by affinity.. Ex Earris 6 L.R.A. 713, Fla., Lo- v. State,SO~Southern 45, Ala. 4's father and the wife's father wufd not ba so related. *he

As aptly pit by JudgeC. J. Blaokley ia the ease of Central R.,Co~i'. v. Roberts,91 ffa. 513, 18 S.E? 315:,"5 groom and bride each comeswit&ix& ,.. the oirola

of the other'o

kin; In& skin

and kin am still no more relatedt&m they nere.before.'

You aA, the&ore, advisedthat tha county officer'sdpugkter-inlaw*8 fathermay be employed without

violating

the Xqmtism Lax. GRLrN:egw A.PPR(lITED, b/ Gerald C. Mam ATToRBEyGBKERALOF' Your8 wrytrlqy ATTom GRlwiALOF TXA8 I&/S/ Glenn R.'Le&

A.sis-tWt
Disability and Voting Accessibility 

in the 2022 Elections

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) - in partnership with Rutgers University – has 

released a new study examining the gaps and advancements in voter accessibility throughout the 

country. With a focus on voter accessibility in the 2022 election, Rutgers researchers compared 

the results to the same post-election surveys that were conducted in 2012 and 2020. The survey 

covers topics such as voter turnout, difficulties voting, assistance voting, voting methods, and 

treatment by election officials. These results shine a necessary light on the existing gaps between 

individuals with and without disabilities and the steps that must be taken by election officials to 

make voting more accessible.

Key Findings of the Report Include:

While turnout in 2022 increased among people with disabilities

from 2018, they voted at a 1.5% lower rate overall than people 

without disabilities.

About one in seven voters with disabilities encountered difficulties 

voting in 2022, which was a slight increase from the one in nine 

voters with disabilities who encountered difficulties in 2020.

1.5%
The likelihood of difficulties voting in person in 2022 was 20% 

among people with disabilities compared to 6% among people 

without disabilities. The likelihood of difficulties voting with a 

mail ballot was 6% among people with disabilities compared to 

less than 1% among people without disabilities.

One in five voters with a disability either needed assistance or had 

some difficulty in voting in 2022, which was three times the rate 

of voters without disabilities.

Voting difficulties were most common among people with vision 

and cognitive impairments.

Close to three-fifths of voters with disabilities voted with a mail 

ballot or early in person in 2022, compared to just over half of 

voters without disabilities. The shift in mail voting between 2020 

and 2022 was similar between voters with and without disabilities.

Voters with disabilities reported similarly as voters without 

disabilities when it came to perceived treatment by election 

officials, confidence that their votes were accurately counted in 

2022, and the extent to which they report following politics.

The full report can be found here. www.eac.gov/voting-accessibility
<PAGE>

                                                                         Page 42


                                 EXHIBIT 23.1

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

                              CROWELL & CO., INC.



      We hereby consent to the use in the Form 10-KSB of our report dated March
   25, 1996, relating to the financial statements of Crowell & Co., Inc., as of
   December 31, 1996 and 1995, and for the years then ended.



   CHERRY, BEKAERT & HOLLAND, L. L. P.


   Augusta, Georgia
   March 21, 1996
No. 11-10070.

#### Garrett *v.*Coursey, Superintendent, Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 19566]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07182]



[[Page 19566]]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE:  2:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 7, 2022.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the 
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, 
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend 
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the 
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting 
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, 
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website 
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), 
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the 
following topics:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of 
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please 
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 
551-5400.

(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.)

     Dated: March 31, 2022.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-07182 Filed 3-31-22; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
**Docket Number FAA -**  **2014 -**  **0620**
#### Armando SEVERINO-ZUNIGA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 17-71335

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 20, 2017

Armando Severino-Zuniga, Pro Se •

Lindsay M. Murphy, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Armando Severino-Zuniga, a native and citizen of Argentina, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision granting his request to withdraw his application for admission, and the BIA’s order regarding his motions to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo legal determinations, and for substantial evidence factual findings. *Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand and a motion to reopen. *Konstantinova v. INS,*195 F.3d 528, 529 (9th Cir. 1999). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We do not consider the materials Severi-no-Zuniga submitted with his opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. *See Fisher v. INS,*79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

The BIA properly dismissed as untimely Severino-Zuniga’s appeal from the IJ’s grant of his request to withdraw his application for admission where he filed it over three months after the IJ’s decision and did not provide any explanation for the late filing. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b)-(c), Thus, we lack jurisdiction to review Severi-no-Zuniga’s due process contentions. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).

The BIA*did not abuse its discretion by affirming the IJ’s denial of Severino-Zuni-ga’s motion to reopen. *See Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005) (standard of review); *Lata v. INS,**892204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim)

Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by declining to remand Severino-Zuniga’s case where he failed to offer evidence that was unavailable and incapable of being discovered or presented at the former hearing. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); *Goel v. Gonzales,*490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 2007) (BIA did not abuse its discretion where evidence proffered was not previously unavailable).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joshua D. KNAUP, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-50107

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 16, 2018

Andrew James Galvin, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Emily J. Keifer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kristi A. Hughes, Doug Keller, Attorney, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Joshua D. Knaup appeals from the district court’s- judgment and challenges the 33-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for two counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Knaup contends that the district court abused its discretion by imposing sentence based on internally inconsistent factual findings. We disagree. The district court’s remarks consistently reflect its finding that Knaup defrauded investors. The court’s speculation that Knaup may have come to believe his misstatements was not inconsistent with that finding. Further, the 33-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the need to provide just punishment for the offense. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
No. 11-9820.

#### Rhodes *v.*Tucker, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
Exhibit 4.10


 


English Language Summary


 


Authorization Agreement for Radiofrequency Blocks Personal Mobile Service– Termo de Outorga de Autorização de Uso de Blocos de Radiofrequências Associadas ao Serviço Móvel Pessoal No. 515/2012/SPV-ANATEL


 



	
Parties:

	
Telefônica Brasil S.A., as authorizee, and Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações (ANATEL), as grantor.


	 	 
	
Date:

	
October 16, 2012.


	 	 
	
Expiration:

	
October 18, 2027.


	 	 
	
Purpose:

	
Authorization to use blocks of radiofrequency associated with Personal Mobile Service, without exclusivity, primarily in sub-bands 2,550 to2,570 MHz and 2,670 to 2,690 MHz.


	 	 
	
Area:

	
Region II of the General Plan of Personal Mobile Service Authorization, which includes the states of Paraná, Santa Catarina, Rio Grande do Sul, Goiás, Tocantins, Mato Grosso do Sul, Mato Grosso, Rondônia, Acre and Federal District.


	 	 
	
Amount:

	
R$248,344,927.69 (two hundred forty-eight million, three hundred forty and four thousand, nine hundred twenty-seven reais and sixty-nine cents). 10% of the total value was paid upon signing, the remainder will be paid in 2013.


	 	 
	
Renewal:

	
This license may be renewed only once, for 15 years. The amount due for the renewal will be payable every two years during the extension period for an amount corresponding to 2% (two percent) of the revenues of the Personal Mobile Service provider for the year preceding payment, net of taxes and social contributions. On the 15th year the provider must pay 1% of its revenue for the previous year.


	 	 
	
Penalty:

	
Breach of the Authorization Agreement and applicable regulations to Multimedia Communication Services may result in administrative proceedings by ANATEL, the application of warning sanctions, fines, temporary suspension or revocation of licenses.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1991
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1991
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>