alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.3

                       AMENDMENT TO MASTER LEASE AGREEMENT

29. SECURITY INTEREST. As security for Lessee's obligations hereunder, Lessee
hereby grants Lessor a security interest in all equipment (as defined in Article
9 of the Uniform Commercial Code in effect in the State of Minnesota on the date
hereof and as may be amended from time to time) of Lessee, whether now owned or
hereafter acquired (collectively, "Equipment"), and Lessee shall execute and
consents to filing of appropriate UCC-1 financing statements with respect to
such interest. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Lessor agrees that:

                  (i) such interest in any future Equipment will automatically
         be subordinated to a purchase money security interest of any party
         providing financing for such future Equipment and the Lessor shall
         execute any release or subordination agreement as required by the
         purchase money lender; and

                  (ii) in connection with any subsequent secured financing by
         the Lessee, Lessor will, upon request, release or subordinate all of
         its interests in any Equipment not subject to any Lease, and that such
         release or subordination will not be unreasonably withheld or delayed
         as long as Lessee is not in default of the obligations under the Lease
         or has not been in default of the obligations under the Lease for the
         past eight (8) months.



         Accepted and agreed this 10th day of April, 2000



         Applied Biometrics, Inc., Lessee

         By: /s/ Camille M. Meyer

         Title: Vice-President, Finance & Chief Financial Officer



         Dexxon Capital Corporation, Lessor

         By: /s/ Chris Duncan

         Title: President
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**Certification
      Pursuant to**


**18
      U.S.C. Section 1350,**


**as
      Adopted Pursuant to**


**Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Telestone Technologies Corporation
      (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed
      with
      the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Liu
      Dongping, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      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 result of operations of the Company.





Dated:  November
      12, 2006





By:  /s/
      Liu Dongping


Name:  Liu
      Dongping


Title:  Chief
      Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
#### Douglas SPECTOR, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD., doing business as Norwegian Cruise Line, Defendant-Appellee. *286Douglas Spector, et al., Defendants-Appellees, v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., doing business as Norwegian Cruise Line, Plaintiff-Appellant.

Nos. 02-21154, 03-20056.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 29, 2005.

Sandra Krider, Brady Edwards, Edwards, Burns & Braziel, William H. Bruckner, Elaine B. Roberts, Bruckner Burch, Houston, TX, for Doug and Ana Spector, Hollenbeck Killough and Peters.

Thomas Howard Wilson, Michael James Muskat, Vinson *&*Elkins, Houston, TX, for Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd.

Marie K. McElderry, Dennis J. Dimsey, Deputy Chief, App. Sec., U.S. Dept, of Justice, Civ. Rights Div., Washington, DC, for U.S., Amicus Curiae.

*ORDER ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES*

Before REAVLEY, JONES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

On remand from the Supreme Court, this court requested letters from counsel advising whether this court should decide the remaining issues or should remand to the district court for further proceedings. Responding to the request, counsel for Norwegian Cruise Line raised for the first time fact-based mootness and standing issues that are contested by counsel for Douglas Spector, et al. To properly address these jurisdictional issues and, if appropriate, the remaining issues in the case, we must remand. In doing so, we note only that the district court’s original basis for denying relief—the Government’s failure to promulgate uniform physical accessibility guidelines for cruise ships—has not been eliminated by the Supreme Court’s decision as at least a factor in the liability determination.

REMANDED.
MEMORANDUM

TO: Docket No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0464

Air Quality Designations for the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) National

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

– Second Round

FROM: Scott Mathias

Air Quality Policy Division, EPA OAQPS

SUBJECT: EPA’s Intended Designation for Franklin County, Missouri for 2010 Primary SO 2

NAAQS

O n March 8, 2016, representatives from EPA and Senator Claire McCaskill ’ s office discussed

via telephone the intended designation for Frankly County, Missouri for the 2010 Primary SO 2 NAAQS.

The following representatives were present:

Scott Mathias

– EPA OAQPS

Richard “ Chet ” Wayland

– EPA OAQPS

Sara Terry

– EPA OAQPS

Amy Algoe

- Eakin

– EPA R e gion 7

Matthew Davis

– EPA OCIR

Patrick Bond

– Office of Senator Claire McCaskill
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**MAC R1204-0109062 Old Annapolis RoadColumbia, MD 21045Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II 

200 West Street

New York, New York 10282

 

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-GC28

 

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2015 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

March 1, 2016

/s/ BRIAN SMITH

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 12 - 00187 - CR MELINDA R. HOWARD APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 2 OF DENTON COUNTY

---------- 

### OPINION DISSENT ING FROM DENIAL OF MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

----------
Respectfully, I must dissent from the majority’s denial of Appellant’s m otion for r ehearing e n b anc

. Officer Clements was dispatche d to investigate the crime of driving while intoxicated ( DWI ) . He was not engaged in community caretaking. When he approached Appellant , who was leaning on the truck, he determined that she had alcohol on her breath ; was thick

- tongued ; and had glassy, he avy eyes . W hen Clements asked her to move away from the truck, she swayed and2

was unsteady on her feet. At that point , Clements had probable cause to believe that Appellant was guilty of public intoxication and probable cause to arrest her for public int oxication. Clements admitted at the hearing on Appellant’s motion to
suppress that she was not free to leave and was being detained until he completed his DWI investigation. Clements asked Appellant for her name, instructed her to step away from the truc k, and said, “Tell me what happened this evening . . . .” There was a clear show of authority by Clements. Appellant acquiesced to that show of authority. But Clements had no authority to arrest her for DWI because chapter 14 of the code of criminal proc edure does not authorize a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor DWI committed outside the police officer’s
presence unless it could be classified as a breach of the peace , which is not applicable here

. 1 Chapter 14 does , however, authorize a warrantless ar rest for
the public intoxication offense , both because it was committed within Clement s ’s
presence and because he found Appellant “ in suspicious places and under circumstances which reasonably show that [she is] guilty of” that offense. 2
Clements’s p ublic intoxication investigation was complete , and he was gathering evidence for a DWI prosecution when he questioned Appellant

.

1 See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 14.01(b), 14.03(a)(1) (West 2005 & Supp. 2012 ).

2 See id. a rts. 14.01(b), 14.03(a)(1).3

I would hold that the evidence clearly demonstrated that Clements had probable cause to arrest Appellant for public intoxication and that she was not free to leave when he questioned her. Under Dowthitt 3 and Miranda , 4 Appellant was entitled to be warned that she did not have to answer Clements’s questions.
I would therefore grant rehearing , vacate our prior opinion, reverse the trial court’s judgment, and remand this case. Because the majority does not, I respectfully dissent.

LEE ANN DAUPHINOT JUSTICE PUBLISH
DELIVERED: May 30 , 2013

3 Dowthitt v. State , 931 S.W.2d 244, 252

– 55 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

4 See Miranda v. Arizona , 3 84 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 1612 (1966).
EX-10.6(b)




							
		 		 		 	 Exhibit 10.6(b)
  

Wealth Management
 Ceres Managed Futures
LLC
 522 Fifth Avenue - 14th Fl
 New
York, NY 10036
 tel 212 296 1999
 fax
212 296 6868


  
 



 
 June 1, 2013 

Aventis Asset Management, LLC 
 2150 E. Lake
Cook Road, Suite 720 
 Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 
 Attention: Mr. Steve Hwang 
  

	 	Re:	Management Agreement Renewals 

 Dear Mr.
Hwang: 
 We are writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to which reference is made below (the
“Management Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2014 and all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged. 

 

	 	•	 	 Commodity Advisors Fund L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 MB Master Fund L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Institutional Futures Portfolio L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 MSSB Spectrum Strategic L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Managed Futures Premier Aventis II, L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Managed Futures Premier Aventis L.P. 


 Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it to the attention of Mr. Damian George at the address above or fax to 212-296-6868. If you have any
questions I can reached at 212-296-1292. 
 Very truly yours, 
  

			
	CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC
		
		 	
	By:	 	 /s/ Damian George

		 	Damian George
		 	 Chief Financial Officer & Director

	
	AVENTIS ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Steven Hwang



			
	Print Name:	 	 Steven Hwang, coo/Head of Marketing


 DG/sr 
 Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, Member SIPC.
No. 11-338.

No. 11-347.

#### Decker, Oregon State Forester, et al. *v.*Northwest Environmental Defense Center; and Georgia-Pacific West, Inc., et al. *v.*Northwest Environmental Defense Center.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.

Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.

Reported below: 640 F. 3d 1063.
RO 14534 Ms. Amy J. Blankenbiller American Foundry Society

900 2 nd Street, N.E.

Suite 109 Washington, D.C. 20002-3557

Dear Ms. Blankenbiller:

Thank you for your letter of May 19, 2000 to Ms. Connie Musgrove and Mr. Matt Hale regarding Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements for foundry sand used in the manufacture of ca stings. I would also like to express my appreciation to you, Mr. Dan Oman, and Mr. Mark Remlinger for conducting site visits for Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) staff to three foundries.

In EPA=s letter to your organization dated March 8, 1995, we addressed the process of making sand molds and reusing return sand in the primary production process to produce new molds (the sand loop). At that time, we stated our initial conclusion that the process of separating bits and pieces of metal, fines, core sand butts, and other clumps of mold sand at the shakeo ut table and screen to create return sand for reuse in the sand loop is reclamation of a spent material. Today, EPA is clarifying our interpretation of the sand loop based on the processes at the foundries we visited, the information that you provided to us, an d the opinion of the U.S. Circuit Court for

the District of Columbia in Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , 208 F.3d 1047 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (referencing American Mining Congress

v. EPA , 824 F.2 1177 (D.C. Cir. 1987)). Note that this letter only addresses your question regarding use of sand in the sand loop. It does not address the status of any thermal processing of sand.

We believe that reusing sand on-site within the sand loop for mold-making, including the separation step described in th e paragraph above, is part of a continuous industrial production process by the gene rating industry. Consequently, the sandsRO 14534 being reused onsite in the primary production process on a continuous basis in the sand loop are not solid wastes. We also believe that sand stored indoors that is reused in the sand loop is part of the ongoing production process, as long as it is handled as a valuable material for the manufacture of castings. On the other hand, if sand is handled in a way that would indicate the material is not valuable ( e.g ., a sand pile exposed to the elements), it would raise questions of whethe r the sand is being legitimately reused as part of the continuous production process. Please note that when foundry sand is removed from the process described above for disposal (or for subsequent treatment or storage prior to disposal), that sand is a solid waste potentially within the jurisdiction of

RCRA

Subtitle C.

We hope this letter answers your question. If you have any further questions, please contact Lesley Schaaff in the Office of Solid Waste at 703-308-0091 or Carolyn

Dick in the Office of Enforcement and Compliance A ssurance, RCRA Enforcement Division, at

202-564-4007.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Cotsworth, Director

Office of Solid Waste

Eric Schaeffer, Director Office of Regulatory Enforcement Office of Enforcement & Compliance

Assurance
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10925 Conference Calendar

VINCENT JOHN BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, Director, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:96-CV-227

- - - - - - - - - - October 24, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Vincent John Brown, Texas inmate # 437587, challenges the district court’s dismissal, as frivolous, of his civil rights complaint. For essentially the same reasons as relied upon by the district court in its order of dismissal, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the complaint lacked an arguable basis in law. See Brown v. Johnson , No. 2:96-CV-0227 (N.D. Tex. July 11, 1996).No. 96-10925 - 2 - For the first time on appeal, Brown contends that his complaint is maintainable because the defendants purportedly violated Texas law and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act’s saccharin-warning provisions. No error, plain or otherwise, ensued by the district court’s failure to consider this argument; the outcome would not be altered. See Highlands Ins. v. National Union Fire Ins. , 27 F.3d 1027, 1031-32 (5th Cir. 1994) (applying plain-error standard in civil case to issue raised for the first time on appeal), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 903 (1995). This appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. It is DISMISSED. We caution Brown that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Brown is further cautioned to review all pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously decided by this court.
APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
#### COM. v. GARLOCK, T.

1575 MDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

9/19/2017

CP-28-CR-0001393-2010

(Franklin)

Reversed/Vacated/Remanded
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
          This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from
          Synaptix Systems  Corporation March 31, 1997 financial  statements and
          is  qualified   in  its  entirety  by  reference  to  such   financial
          statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000817125
<NAME>                        Synaptix Systems Corporation

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         3,733
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,733
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,733
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          96,316
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       4,471
<OTHER-SE>                                     (97,054)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,733
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               76,026
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (76,026)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (76,026)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (76,026)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.14)
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7129

KIM LEIGHTON MCBRIDE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

L. T. LESTER,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.

(CA-95-341-2)

Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 21, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kim Leighton McBride, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant noted this appeal outside the thirty-day appeal

period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), failed to obtain an

extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day

period provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), and is not entitled to

relief under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The time periods established

by Fed. R. App. P. 4 are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v.

Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting

United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district

court entered its order on June 16, 1995; Appellant's notice of

appeal was filed on July 26, 1995. Appellant's failure to note a

timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period deprives

this court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore deny

a certificate of probable cause to appeal, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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
EXPERIENCE | Election Systems
RELIABILITY & Software

security 4!

MAINTAINING VOTER CONFIDENCE.

\
Pov ALON 4! ENHANCING THE VOTING EXPERIENCE.

October 31, 2008

Testing and Certification Program Director
U.S. Election Assistance Commission
1225 New York Ave. NW, Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005

Dear Program Director:

With respect to the Election Assistance Commission's recent decision to suspend the
accreditation of SysTest Laboratories, Inc., Election Systems & Software respectfully requests
the EAC to accept our request to change the lead VSTL for the remainder of the certification
testing for Unity 3.2.0.0 submitted on March 19, 2007 and assigned application number
ESso701.

ES&S has selected iBeta Quality Assurance as their choice for lead VSTL for this effort.
Enclosed with this letter, please find our amended Voting System Certification application
reflecting this proposed VSTL change.

Respectfully:

ug Pog

Director of Certification

“Maintaining Voter Confidence. Enhancing the Voting Experience.”
11208 John Galt Boulevard + Omaha, NE 68137 USA + Phone: 402.593.0101 + Toll-Free: 1.800.247.8683 * Fax: 402.593.8107 + www.essvote.com



U.S. Election Assistance Commission -[_PrintForm | [Submit by Email |

Application for Voting System Testing RST TOE aid

1. Manufacturer Name: [Election Systems & Software, Inc.

2. Manufacturer Code: ESS

3. Version of Standards to be Used for Testing: [2002

4, Voting System Name: [Unity 3.2.0.0

5. System Model/Version Number: |unity 3.2.0.0

6, EACAccredited VSTL: |iBeta

7. Requested EAC Certification number: jESSUnity3200

8. Brief Description of
System or system
modification:

Election Management System and Tabulation (see attached form of modules)

Signature: Sus ad Thang a

Date: Oct 29, 2008

Form EAC 002C Page 1 of 3



Unity 3.2.0.0

Audit Manager — 7.5.0.0
Election Data Manager — 7.8.0.0
ESS Image Manager — 7.7.0.0
Hardware Programming Manager — 5.7.0.0
Election Reporting Manager — 7.5.2.0

AutoMARK Information Management System — 1.3.57

AutoMARK - 1.3.2904
DS200 — 1.3.7.0

Model 650 — 2.2.1.0