alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exhibit10-41_2.htm




Exhibit 10.41.2


 


November 1, 2010 


 



	To:       	
Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated

1585 Broadway

New York, New York 10036 


 


United States Department of the Treasury

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20220 







 


Ladies and Gentlemen: 


 


     This letter agreement is being executed and delivered to confirm and set forth the terms and conditions of an agreement among Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, as sales agent and/or principal (the “Manager”) and Citigroup Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), relating to the Equity Distribution Agreement, dated April 26, 2010 (the “Agreement”), among the Manager, the Company and the United States Department of the Treasury, as selling stockholder (the “Selling Stockholder”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Agreement. 


 


     The Company hereby informs the Manager and the Selling Stockholder that the Company’s representation set forth in Section 1(a)(v)(B)(3) of the Agreement (the “ineligible issuer representation”) was, and will continue to be, inaccurate on and after October 19, 2010. 


 


     The Manager hereby agrees that (1) with respect to Section 2(d) of the Agreement, (a) the Company shall not be deemed to have affirmed the ineligible issuer representation at any time on or after October 19, 2010, and (b) the Manager’s obligation to use its commercially reasonable efforts to sell the Shares on behalf of the Selling Stockholder as sales agent shall not be subject to the continuing accuracy of the ineligible issuer representation, and (2) with respect to Section 8(f) of the Agreement, the ineligible issuer representation shall not remain operative or in full force and effect on any date on or after October 19, 2010. 


 


     Each party hereto agrees and acknowledges that the Agreement, including the representations and warranties of the Company and the Selling Stockholder, as modified by this letter agreement, is in all respects ratified and confirmed. 


 





 






     Please evidence your acknowledgement of and agreement with the foregoing by executing and returning a duplicate of this letter agreement. 


 



	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	CITIGROUP INC.
	 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ John C. Gerspach	 
	 	 	Name:  	John C. Gerspach
	 	 	Title:	Chief Financial Officer







Acknowledged and agreed to as of the date first above written: 


 



	MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INCORPORATED	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Kenneth G. Pott	 	 
	 	Name:	Kenneth G. Pott	 
	 	Title:	Managing Director	 
	 	 
	UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY	 
	 	 	 
	By:  	/s/ Timothy G. Massad	 	 
	 	Name:  	Timothy G. Massad	 
	 	Title:	Acting Assistant Secretary for	 
	 	 	Financial Stability and Chief Counsel
# C_2017386EN.01000501.xml

| 16.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 386/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 386/5

---

Special Report No 16/2017

‘Rural Development Programming: less complexity and more focus on results needed’

(2017/C 386/05)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 16/2017 ‘Rural Development Programming: less complexity and more focus on results needed’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu

---
No. 09-9508.

#### Walter S. Wilson, Petitioner v. Gene M. Johnson, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

560 U.S. 909, 130 S. Ct. 3282,

176 L. Ed. 2d 1191,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3963.

May 17, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 332 Fed. Appx. 903.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-70468on Form  S-8 of our reports dated December 7, 2005, relating to theconsolidated financial statements of Innovative Solutions and Support, Inc.and subsidiaries and management’s report on the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-Kof Innovative Solutions and Support, Inc. and subsidiaries for the yearended September 30, 2005.
| /s/ DELOITTE &  TOUCHE LLP |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|
| Philadelphia, Pennsylvania          |   |
| December 12, 2005                   |   |

 

----
Exhibit 21.1



SOLECTRON CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES

                                         State or Other Jurisdiction of
Subsidiary                               Incorporation or Organization
------------                             ------------------------------

The Americas
------------
Solectron California Corporation         California
Solectron Massachusetts Corporation      California
Solectron Technology, Inc.               California
Solectron Texas, Inc.                    Delaware
Solectron Washington, Inc.               California
Fine Pitch Technology, Inc.              California
Force Computers, Inc.                    Delaware
Solectron Brasil, Ltda.                  Brazil
Solectron de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.        Mexico

Europe
------------
Solectron France, S.A.                   France
Solectron GmbH                           Germany
Solectron Scotland Limited               Scotland
Nybyggaren 45:830 AB (Sweden)            Sweden

Asia
------------
Solectron Japan, Inc.                    Japan
Solectron (Suzhou) Technology Co., Ltd   Suzhou, Peoples Republic of 
                                         China
Solectron Technology SDN. BHD.           Malaysia
No. 09-9707.

#### Sherman Lynell Thomas, Petitioner v. Boyd W. Howze, Jr., et al.

560 U.S. 911, 130 S. Ct. 3291,

176 L. Ed. 2d 1196,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3995.

May 17, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 348 Fed. Appx. 474.
<Page>

                                                               EXHIBIT 32.2 Cert

                                  CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of ING Life
Insurance and Annuity Company (the "Company") hereby certifies that, to the
officer's knowledge, the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13 or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date   March 28, 2005                  By  /s/ Brian D. Comer
       --------------                      ------------------
                                           Brian D. Comer
                                           President

                                       94
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 12, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41223 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus BENJAMIN RODRIGUEZ-JUAREZ, also known as Luis Hernandez-Rodriguez,
Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:04-CR-315-ALL

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *Benjamin Rodriguez-Juarez (Rodriguez) appeals his guiltyplea conviction for unlawful presence in the United States following deportation. He argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000).No. 05-41223 -2- His constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Rodriguez contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi , we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Rodriguez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.
AFFIRMED.
See 34 Tex. Admin. Code § 3.308(b)(1) (2009) (defining “computer program”). 1

 See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 151.0031 (West 2008) (defining “computer program”). 2

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00151-CV

Verizon North, Inc., Appellant

v.

Susan Combs, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas; and Greg Abbott,

Attorney General of the State of Texas, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 200TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-06-001295, HONORABLE JOHN K. DIETZ, JUDGE PRESIDING

C O N C U R R I N G O P I N I O N

Because Verizon contends only that the computersoftware program that it purchased

does not fall within the Comptroller’s regulatory definition of “computer program” and not that such 1

program falls outside the statutory definition of that term, I would affirm the judgment of the district 2

court. Although section 151.021 of the tax code allows the Comptroller to adopt rules that clarify

and implement the legislation, such rules must be consistent with the plain language of the statute.

See generally Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Meno, 893 S.W.2d 450, 474 n.24 (Tex. 1995)

(promulgated rules must be consistent with state constitution and statutes); Gerst v. Oak Cliff Sav.

& Loan Ass’n, 432 S.W.2d 702, 706 (Tex. 1968)(when exercising authority delegated by legislature,
2

agency must adopt rules consistent with state constitution and statutes). Accordingly, I decline to

adopt the majority’s analysis, and I concur in the judgment only.

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Pemberton and Waldrop

Filed: May 22, 2009
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

September 21, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00395

- CR

Devon Marcell WILLIAMS
, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the County Court at L aw No. 2
, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 654573 Honorable Grace M. Uzomba , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

A trial court’s certification of the defendant’s right of appeal has been filed in this appeal. The trial court has certified that the underlying criminal case “is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.”

W e ORDER the trial court clerk to file an electronic clerk’s r ecord within TEN DAYS of the date of this order containing the following documents:

1. all pre

- trial orders and the related pre

- trial motions;

2. the Court’s Admonishments, the defendant’s Waiver, Consent to Stipulation of Testimony, and any other stipulations, and all other documents relating to the defendant ’ s plea bargain;

3. the Judgment;

4. all postjudgment motions and orders;

5. the Notice of Appeal;

6. the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal; and

7. the Criminal Docket Sheet.We DIRECT the clerk o f this court to send a copy of this order to the attorneys of record, the trial court clerk, and the court reporter(s) responsible for preparing the reporter’s record in this appeal.

All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further order of thi s court.

_________________________________ Patric ia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 21st day of September, 2021

.

_______________________________ ____ MICHAEL A. CRUZ
, Clerk of Court
**Electronic Communication for Docket EPA -**  **HQ -**  **OPP -**  **2013 -**  **0411.**

**From:** Smith, Charles **Sent:** Thursday, February 20, 2014 2:49 PM **To:** Madden, Barbara; Kumar, Rita; Laws, Meredith **Cc:** Perron, Monique; Tyler, Jennifer
- R **Subject:** Spirodiclofen RD, This email is to inform you of the progress regarding the spirodiclofen immunotoxicity and inhalation toxicity study requirements as referenced in the 2011 spirodiclofen risk assessment (J. Tyler; D386201; 11/11/11). Since the completion of that assessment, HED has rev iewed the immunotoxicity study (MRID 49072601) submitted by the registrants. This study was classified as acceptable/guideline and satisfies the guideline requirement for an immunotoxicity study in rodents (M. Perron; TXR 0056898; 2/19/14). No treatment related systemic or immunotoxicity related effects were seen at the highest dose tested (1,216 mg/kg/day). As a result, the immunotoxicity study does not materially impact the results of the 2011 risk assessment. On February 20, 2014 the Hazard and Scien ce Policy Council (HASPOC) met to discuss the need for an inhalation study in rats to support the registered and future proposed uses of spirodiclofen. **The HASPOC, based on a**  **WOE approach, concludes that a subchronic inhalation toxicity study is not requi**  **red for spirodiclofen**  **at this time.** This approach considered all of the available hazard and exposure information for spirodiclofen , including: (1) all relevant hazard and exposure information, including its low acute inhalation toxicity; (2) the lowest s hort

- and intermediate

-term MOEs calculated using an oral POD are 6,200 and 1,000, respectively; and ( 3) its physical/chemical properties, including its low volatility. Since both of the toxicity data requirements discussed in the 2011 risk assessment h ave been fulfilled, there are no longer any outstanding toxicity data requirements for spirodiclofen. Thanks. Charles (Billy) Smith Branch Chief, Risk Assessment Branch 1 Health Effects Division/Office of Pesticide Programs Environmental Protection Agency 703

- 305

- 0291
NUMBER 13-16-00465-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE SHAHIN ZARAIEHN

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria

Per Curiam Order

Relator, Shahin Zaraiehn, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause 

on August 22, 2016. Through this original proceeding, relator seeks to set aside an order 

granting a new trial. The Court requests that the real party in interest, Dale & Klein, L.L.P.,

or any others whose interest would be directly affected by the relief sought, file a response 

to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before the expiration of ten days from the date 

of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM
2

Delivered and filed the

22nd day of August, 2016.
Exhibit 10.23





AMENDMENT NUMBER 2007-1

TO SERVICES AGREEMENT



This is Amendment Number 2007-1 (this Amendment) to the Services Agreement made January 1, 2001, as amended July 16, 2003, by and among ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company and the affiliated insurance companies specified in Exhibit B to the Services Agreement (or the successors by merger to such affiliated insurance companies) (the Agreement).  This Amendment is dated as of December 31, 2007.  Capitalized terms not defined in this Amendment shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement.



1.
        Amendment to Section 2 of the Agreement.




Section 2, subparagraph (c) is amended by the deletion of the first sentence of subparagraph (c) and the insertion of the following sentence in lieu thereof:



The charges for Direct Costs and Indirect Costs referred to above shall be made by the Service Provider on a monthly or quarterly basis as appropriate for the particular Service and shall be paid not later than forty-five days following the date of the charge.



2.Amended Agreement.  Except as specifically amended by this Amendment, each and every term of the Agreement remains in full force and effect.



3.Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in separate counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the date first above written.





ING LIFE INSURANCE AND ANNUITY COMPANYBy: /s/
        Spencer T. ShellName:
        Spencer T. ShellTitle:
        Vice President, Assistant Treasurer andAssistant Secretary






---





RELIASTAR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANYBy: /s/
        Spencer T. ShellName:
        Spencer T. ShellTitle:
        Vice President, Assistant Treasurer andAssistant Secretary






ING USA ANNUITY AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANYBy: /s/
        Spencer T. ShellName:
        Spencer T. ShellTitle:
        Vice President, Assistant Treasurer andAssistant Secretary






SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF DENVERBy: /s/
        Spencer T. ShellName:
        Spencer T. ShellTitle:
        Vice President, Assistant Treasurer andAssistant Secretary






MIDWESTERN UNITED LIFE INSURANCE COMPANYBy: /s/
        Spencer T. ShellName:
        Spencer T. ShellTitle:
        Vice President, Assistant Treasurer andAssistant Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

        <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
10-KSB FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-KSB.

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                     MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                10,296
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                      1,337,624
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   1,347,920
<PP&E>                                 2,660
<DEPRECIATION>                           532
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     1,350,048
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  6,682
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                          739,200
<COMMON>                           1,436,055
<OTHER-SE>                                 0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       1,350,048
<SALES>                              618,421
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     620,739
<CGS>                              1,044,238
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      1,302,875
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     258,637
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (682,136)
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                        (682,136)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (.21)





</TABLE>
No. 09-7302.

#### Walter J. Brzowski, Petitioner v. Michael T. Tristano, et al.

559 U.S. 1032, 130 S. Ct. 1944,

176 L. Ed. 2d 408,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2513.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 558 U.S. 1123, 130 S. Ct. 1076, 175 L. Ed. 2d 902, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 309.
No. 09-8463.

#### Jesse White, et ux., Petitioners v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Incorporated.

559 U.S. 1103, 130 S. Ct. 2400,

176 L. Ed. 2d 788,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3648.

April 26, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 559 U.S. 1010, 130 S. Ct. 1937, 176 L. Ed. 2d 371, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 2678.
J. J. the amended judgment of conviction and conclude that the district court correctly concluded no further relief was warranted. 2 Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3 Hardesty 

### Parraguirre
cc: Hon. Kimberly A. Wanker, District Judge Clyde H. Means Nye County District Attorney Attorney General/Carson City Nye County Clerk
2 We note that the State has not challenged the award of additional days of presentence credit.

3 We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 2
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 09, 2015. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, July 09, 2015 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A15I0231. THE CITY OF WINTERVILLE v. TALBOT CONSTRUCTION, INC..
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 14C04350
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 147 (Friday, July 31, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 40881]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20579]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

federal register citation of previous announcement: 63 FR 36883.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF MEETING: 2:00 p.m., Wednesday, 
July 29, 1998.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission 
changed the meeting to discuss enforcement matters to Thursday, August 
13, 1998 at 2:00 p.m.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 98-20579 Filed 7-29-98; 10:54 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-20-00372-CV

LIDIA ELIZARDI A/K/A LIDIA E. MARTINEZ

v.

ONE LAST CAST, LLC, ERIC WILLIAMS, AND FERNANDO BENAVIDEZ

On Appeal from the

197th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2020-DCL-00528-C

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

February 24, 2022