alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.35.6


 


Additional Agreement No. 6


 


To the Contract on Network
Connection between


OAO Rostelecom and OJSC
CenterTelecom as amended by Agreement No. 6480/05-DO

dated January 01, 2006


 


 


	
  Moscow

  	
   

  	
  Dated:
  «25» August, 2006 .

  



 


Rostelecom, Open Joint-Stock Company for Long-Distance and
International Telecommunications,
hereinafter, “Rostelecom”, represented by OAO Rostelecom General Director Dmitry Yevgenievich Yerokhin, authorized to act by the
Charter, on the one part, and CenterTelecom, Open Joint-Stock Company,
hereinafter referred to as the “Operator”, represented by  OJSC
CenterTelecom General Director S.V. Pridantsev,
authorized to act by Charter, on the other part hereinafter collectively
referred to as the “Parties”, and severally, as “Party”, have entered into this
Additional Agreement (hereinafter, “the Agreement”) on the incorporation of the
below-listed amendments to the Contract on Network Connection (hereinafter, “the
Contract”), as follows:


 


1.               Clause
4.7.  of
the Contract shall be amended as follows:  The
entire relationship of the Parties hereunder shall be subject to the
confidentiality terms and conditions as set forth in the Confidentiality
Agreement No. 64-06-30 entered into by the Parties on                           2006.


 


Any exchange of
information between the Parties hereunder shall be in a manner which shall
allow for it to be kept in confidence in accordance with the Confidentiality
Agreement Provisions.


 


2.               This
Agreement is an integral part of the Contract.


 


3.               All
terms used in this Agreement have a meaning, fixed for them in the Contract.


 


4.               All
the rest, not indicated in this Agreement, is subject to the provisions of the
Contract.


 


5.               The
agreement is issued in the Russian language in two original counterparts, one
for  each Party.


 


6.               This
Agreement comes into effect on the date of its execution.  The Parties hereby establish that terms and conditions of the Agreement
entered into thereby shall apply to their relations arisen from the date of the
Contract on Network Connection as amended by Agreement  No. 6480/05-DO  dated
January 01, 2006.


 


7.               Signatures
of the Parties:


 


	
  For Rostelecom:  

  	
  For Operator:  

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  General Director  

  OAO Rostelecom

  	
  General Director  

  OJSC CenterTelecom:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  D.Ye. Yerokhin  

  	
   

  	
  S.V. Pridantsev  

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Seal here

  	
  Seal here
##### 



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 Veramark Technologies, Inc., (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald
C. Lundy, Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (3)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(4)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
of the Company. /s/Ronald C. Lundy  
 25
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>                  5
<MULTIPLIER>               1000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                             808
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,775
<ALLOWANCES>                                       431
<INVENTORY>                                     38,778
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,644
<PP&E>                                          16,808
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,528
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 106,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,239
<BONDS>                                         41,190
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           178
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,060
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   106,300
<SALES>                                         46,729
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,729
<CGS>                                           38,128
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,128
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,572
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,173
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    221
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                164
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       164
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01

</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 19, 2021

No. 04

- 20

- 00596

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.J.K. AND C.A.K., CHILDREN

From the 57th Judici al District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CI01008 Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed on January 7, 2021. The reporter’s record was originally due to be filed in this appeal on January 12, 2021. On January 25, 2021, this court notified the cour t reporter responsible for preparing the record, Ms. Judy Busbe e

- Mat a , that the reporter’s record

was late. Ms. Busbe e

- Mat a was directed to file a notification of late record if she had not received payment no later than February 4, 2021. Otherwise, the reporter’s record was due February 24, 2021. Neither a notification of late record nor the reporter’s record were filed by

the extended deadline.

Accordingly, o n March 1, 2021, this court ordered Ms. Busbe e

- Mat a to file the reporter’s

record in this c ourt no later than March 31, 2021. On March 2, 2021 and again on March 16, 2021, Ms. Busbe e

- Mata filed a letter with this court stating she would immediately file a

notification of late record. No notification has been filed. However, in her letters, sh e states no attorney has requested a reporter’s record from her or made arrangements to pay for the

record. Accordingly, if appellant desires a reporter’s record, he is hereby ORDERED to (1) request in writing, no later than March 29, 2021 , that a reporter’s record be prepared and (2) designate in writing, no later than March 29, 2 021 , the exhibits and those portions of the record to be included in the reporter’s record. Id

. The appellant is hereby ORDERED to file a copy of the request with both the trial court clerk, id

. at 34.6(b)(2), and this court no later than March 29, 2021

.

It is further ORDERE D that appellant provide written proof to this court no later than March 29, 2021 that either (1) the reporter’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the reporter’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the reporte r’s fee. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, appellant’s brief will be due within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, and the court will only consider those issues or points raised in appellant’s brief that do not require a r eporter’s record for a decision

. Se e Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c)

._________________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice

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

court on this 19th day of March, 2021

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz
, Clerk of Court
Brendon HUGGINS & Katherine Huggins, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-5049

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 06, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

293 KA 12-02053 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, PERADOTTO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PERCY L. SCOTT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (BARBARA J. DAVIES OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DAVID A. HERATY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Sheila A. DiTullio, J.), rendered June 16, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted murder in the second degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the case is held, the decision is reserved and the matter is remitted to Erie County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25 [1]). Defendant contends that County Court erred in failing to determine whether he was eligible for youthful offender status. Defendant, an eligible youth, pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea bargain that included a promised sentence and a waiver of the right to appeal. There was no mention during the plea proceedings whether he would be afforded youthful offender treatment.
“Upon conviction of an eligible youth, the court must order a [presentence] investigation of the defendant. After receipt of a written report of the investigation and at the time of pronouncing sentence the court must determine whether or not the eligible youth is a youthful offender” (CPL 720.20 [1]). A sentencing court must determine whether to grant youthful offender status to every defendant who is eligible for it because, inter alia, “[t]he judgment of a court as to which young people have a real likelihood of turning their lives around is just too valuable, both to the offender and to the community, to be sacrificed in plea bargaining” ( People v Rudolph , 21 NY3d 497, 501).
We therefore hold the case and remit the matter to County Court to make and state for the record a determination whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender status ( see Rudolph , 21 NY3d at-2- 293 KA 12-02053

503).

Entered: March 28, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Triple-S Management Corporation;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.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are 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, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andc.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb.
    
    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: August 6, 2008
    
    By:
    /s/ Juan J. RománJuan J. RománVice President of Finance
and Chief Financial Officer
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4054

_____________________________

PATRICK F. O'TOOLE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

John L. Miller, Judge.

January 12, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

LEWIS, OSTERHAUS, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Patrick F. O'Toole, pro se, Appellant.
2

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
EX-34.2
(logo) ERNST & YOUNG

Ernst & Young LLP
220 South Sixth Street, Suite 1400
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4509

Tel: +1 612 343 1000
Fax: +1 612 339 1726
www.ey.com


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
U.S. Bank National Association

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on
Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria Pursuant to Item 1122 of
Regulation AB under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that U.S. Bank National
Association (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item
1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the
Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities platform (the Platform) as of December
31, 2009, and for the period from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009,
except for servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i), 1122(d)(1)(iii),
1122(d)(2)(i)-(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i)-(iv) and 1122(d)(4)(iv)-(xv), which the
Company has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by them
with respect to the servicing Platform covered by this report. Management is
responsible for the Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the
Company's compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as
adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's
compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination
included testing of less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions
and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the
servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the
Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected
activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our
procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities
performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our
procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred
either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances
or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by
this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe
that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our
examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance
with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of December 31, 2009, and for the period
from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009, for the Corporate Trust Asset-
Backed Securities platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ Ernst + Young LLP
March 2, 2010


A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited
OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

154) ll-K-(B)-153 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/200811:12:53 AM Sheet 154 of 325 

P.1 
P.2 

•s~ ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, INC. 

1655 NORTH PORT MYER DRIVE ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22209 703/528-1900 

October 10, 1984 

A-83-27 

II-K-CBO-153 

Mr. Robert Short 

Economic Analysis Branch 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Mail Drop-12 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Subject: EPA Contract No. 68-02-3564 

Dear Robert: 

Attached is a summary of the projected number of new scrubbers from 

the fifth round S02 NSPS analysis IFCAM runs. 

Sincerely, 

/ASH*. fTfo&Zv^ 

Tim Hogan fl 

TH/ce 

Enclosure 

cc: Dr. A. Wehe 

MANAGEMENT / ECONOMICS / ENGINEERING 
P.3 

•i 

j 

TABLE 1. PROJECTED NUMBER OF NEW SCRUBBERS3 

Regulatory baseline 

Option Case lc 

Option Case 0d*

 e 

Option Case 2 e 

Reference 

49 

76 

201 

N.A. 

case 

Higher oil . 

and gas prices 

10 

15 

N.A. 

100 

3New industrial residual fuel oil- or coal-fired boilers larger than 100 

MMBtu/hr installed between 1986 and 1990. 

Fuel price projections. 

cLow sulfur emissions regulations: 1.2 lb S02/MMBtu for coal and 0.8 lb 

S02/MMBtu for residual fuel oil. 

d0.3 lb S02/MMBtu for residual fuel oil. 

Mandatory scrubbing (minimum 50 percent S02 emissions reduction) for 

coal. 
P.4 

-J 

TABLE 2. PROJECTED NUMBER OF NEW SCRUBBERS 

AND TOTAL NEW INDUSTRIAL BOILERS3 

(No. of scrubbers/total no. of new boilers) 

Fuel 

prices 

Reference 

case 

Higher oil 

and gas 

prices 

NSPS 

Regulatory 

baseline 

O.C.lb 

O.C.Oc,d 

Regulatory 

baseline 

O.C.lb 

O.C.2c 

Fuel 

type 

resid. 

coal 

resid 

coal 

resid 

coal 

resid 

coal 

resid 

coal 

resid 

coal 

100-150 

19/203 

0/6 

26/148 

0/4 

70/106 

1/1 

0/22 

0/59 

0/0 

0/32 

0/0 

17/17 

Size (MMBtu/hr) 

150-200 200-250 

14/104 

0/1 

22/74 

0/1 

58/69 

0/0 

0/0 

1/80 

0/0 

6/64 

0/0 

20/20 

10/44 

0/4 

22/32 

0/0 

30/30 

0/0 

0/0 

2/41 

0/0 

2/36 

0/0 

13/13 

>250 

4/66 

2/6 

4/66 

2/6 

30/40 

12/12 

0/0 

7/66 

0/0 

7/66 

0/0 

50/50 

New units installed between 1986 and 1990. 

Low sulfur emissions regulations: 1.2 lb S02/MMBtu for coal and 0.8 lb 

S02/MMBtu for residual fuel oil. 

Mandatory scrubbing (minimum 50 percent S02 emissions reduction) for 

coal. 

30.3 lb S02/MMBtu for residual fuel oil
ZALE CORPORATION/GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Snezana GOLIJAN, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

CASE NO. 1D17-1075

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed December 5, 2017 Rehearing Denied January 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 25, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 12910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6561]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (NSF)


National Science Board Executive Committee; Sunshine Act Meetings

    The National Science Board's Executive Committee, pursuant to NSF 
regulations (45 CFR Part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 
U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of 
meetings for the transaction of National Science Board business and 
other matters specified, as follows:

Date and Time: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 at 12:30 p.m.

Subject Matter: To make recommendations on award actions.

Status: Closed.
    This meeting will be held by teleconference originating at the 
National Science Board Office, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Please refer to the National Science Board 
Web site (http://www.nsf.gov/nsb) for information or schedule updates, 
or contact: Clifford Gabriel, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-7571.

Ann Ferrante,
Writer-Editor.
[FR Doc. E9-6561 Filed 3-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
Michael Aaron KISTLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D17-2639

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Amendment No. 1 dated as of January 2, 2008 to Undertaking Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO UNDERTAKING AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment No. 1 to the Undertaking Agreement (the
“Agreement”) dated as of February 20, 2007, between SGS International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Marriott W. Winchester, Jr., the Senior Vice President of Sales and Marketing for the Company, is
entered into as of January 2, 2008. 
 A. Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:

 1. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Company agrees to advance to the Executive legal fees and expenses as are
actually and reasonably incurred by the Executive in the Litigation (the “Expenses”). The Company and the Executive agree that, unless specifically approved in a resolution adopted by a majority of disinterested directors of the Company,
the Company shall not be required to advance, in the aggregate, more than $150,000.00 in Expenses under this Agreement. 
 B. Except as
amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have
executed this Agreement as of January 2, 2008. 
  

			
	SGS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Benjamin F. Harmon, IV
		 	Benjamin F. Harmon, IV
		 	Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
		
	By:	 	/s/ Marriott W. Winchester, Jr.
		 	Marriott W. Winchester, Jr.
Theresa A. BROCK, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1475

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

JULY 18, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Leandre SNEAD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-1370

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed August 30, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.