alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w11



 





Exhibit 10.11




FIRST AMENDMENT TO SUBLEASE




     THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO SUBLEASE (the “Amendment”) is dated as of
November 24, 2003, by and between E.PIPHANY, INC., a Delaware corporation
(“Sublandlord”) and SINA.COM ONLINE, a California corporation (“Subtenant”).



RECITALS




     WHEREAS, Sublandlord and Subtenant are parties to that certain Sublease
dated as of January 11, 2002, for premises consisting of 5,238 square feet of
space in the building commonly known as and numbered 2988 Campus Drive, Suite
100, San Mateo, California (the “Sublease”);



     WHEREAS, Sublandlord and Subtenant wish to amend the Sublease on the terms
and conditions set forth below.



AGREEMENT




     NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and agreed, Sublandlord and
Subtenant hereby agree as follows:



     1. Subtenant. As of November 1, 2003 (the “Effective Date”), the
introductory paragraph of the Sublease is hereby amended by deleting the name
of Subtenant “SINA.com, a California corporation” and substituting the name
“Sina.com Online, a California corporation” therefor.



     2. Term. As of the Effective Date, the end date of the Sublease Term set
forth in Section II of the Sublease is hereby amended by deleting the date
“February 29, 2004” and substituting the date “September 30, 2005” therefor.



     3. Option Term. Section III of the Sublease is deleted in its entirety.



     4. Base Rent. Section VI of the Sublease is hereby amended by deleting
the first and second sentences and substituting the following therefor:
“Subtenant shall pay to Sublandlord, in advance, in monthly installments,
without withholding, offset or reduction, Basic Rent at the rate of Six
Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($6,000.00) per month for the period through
September 30, 2005.”



     5. Brokers. Sublandlord and Subtenant each warrant to the other that it
has not dealt with any broker in connection with this Amendment other than The
Staubach Company and BT Commercial, for Sublandlord, and BT Commercial, for
Subtenant, and each party agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the
other from and against any breach of this warranty. Sublandlord shall be
responsible for any broker’s commission to be paid per a separate agreement.



     6. Miscellaneous; Ratification; Counterparts. Capitalized terms used
herein but not defined shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the
Sublease. Except as amended hereby, the



 









 





Sublease shall continue unmodified and in full force and effect and is
hereby ratified and confirmed. This Amendment may be executed in counterpart
originals which, taken together, shall constitute a single original.



     EXECUTED as an instrument under seal as of the date first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	SUBLANDLORD:
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	E.PIPHANY, INC., a Delaware corporation
	 
	 	 	 	 
	

	 	By:
	 	/s/



	

	 	 	 	Chief Financial Officer
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	SUBTENANT:
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	SINA.COM ONLINE, a California corporation
	 
	 	 	 	 
	

	 	By:
	 	/s/    Bo Zhang



	

	 	 	 	Bo Zhang, General Manager, Sina U.S.








-2-
Exhibit 8.1

List of Subsidiaries

(As of the date of this annual report)

Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries



|                                                                |  |                       
|--------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|                                                                |  | Place of Incorporation
|1. Bright Sound Electronic Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.      |  | PRC                   
|                                                                | 
|2. Well Profit Creation Limited                                 |  | Hong Kong             
|                                                                | 
|3. Win Bright Creation Limited                                  |  | Hong Kong             
|                                                                | 
|4. Bright Sound Limited                                         |  | British Virgin Islands
|                                                                | 
|5. Innovative Noah Electronic (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.              |  | PRC                   
|                                                                | 
|6. Noah Education Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.               |  | PRC                   
|                                                                | 
|7. New Noah Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.                     |  | PRC                   
|                                                                | 
|8. Shenzhen New Noah Education Investment Development Co., Ltd. |  | PRC                   
|                                                                | 
|9. Noah Education Development (Chengdu) Co., Ltd.               |  | PRC                   
|                                                                | 
|10. Chengdu New Noah School                                     |  | PRC                   
|                                                                | 
|11. Beijing Haidian New Noah School                             |  | PRC                   
|                                                                | 
|12. Beijing Noah Zhi Yuan Education Consulting Co., Ltd.        |  | PRC                   

Affiliated Entities Consolidated in the Registrants Financial Statement



|                                             |  |                       
|-------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|                                             |  | Place of Incorporation
|1. Shenzhen Zhi Yuen Noah Internet Co., Ltd. |  | PRC
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7253

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RODNEY LANE HOOKER, a/k/a D, a/k/a Hook, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-96-188, CA-98-941-1) Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 6, 2000 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney Lane Hooker, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Rodney Lane Hooker seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Hooker’s motion for acertificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Hooker , Nos. CR96-188; CA-98-941-1 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 23, 1999). We dispense withoral 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
EX-35.1
(logo) SUNTRUST



Wells Fargo Bank
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
Attention: STARM 2007-4



Re: Annual Compliance Statement for STARM 2007-4

In connection with the loans serviced by SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. (the
"Company") pursuant to the Company's Servicing Agreement(s)/Purchase and Sale
Agreement(s) with SunTrust Asset Funding, LLC and any applicable Reconstitution
Agreement(s) (together, the "Transaction Agreements"), I, the undersigned
officer, hereby certify the following as of December 31, 2007:

(i)  The Company conducted a review of its activities during the immediately
     preceding calendar year (or applicable portion thereof) and of its
     performance under the Transaction Agreements during such period has been
     made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has
     fulfilled all of its obligations under the Transaction Agreements in all
     material respects throughout such calendar year (or applicable portion
     thereof), except as follows:

*    SunTrust Mortgage did not maintain the required fidelity bond coverage
     amount in accordance with Section 229.1122(d)(i)(iv) at all times during
     2007. The Company maintained fidelity bond coverage in the amount of
     $150MM throughout calendar year 2007, which was determined to be
     insufficient according to applicable FNMA transaction agreement terms.
     This deficiency was an issue for limited portions of the year and resulted
     from an increase in the volume of the servicing portfolio. SunTrust
     Mortgage has requested a waiver from FNMA stating this coverage amount is
     adequate without regard for the size of the residential servicing
     portfolio, subject to an annual FNMA review. FNMA has verbally agreed to
     this request, and SunTrust Mortgage is working to formalize this
     agreement.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I do hereby certify the foregoing as of the date hereof.



/s/ John R. Purcell, Jr.
John R. Purcell, Jr.
Senior Vice President - Manager, Servicing Division

Date: March 12, 2008
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leonard Hyman, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered October 31, 1983, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 6 to 18 years.

Judgment affirmed.

On this appeal, the defendant contends that his plea of guilty should be vacated because he was not advised during the taking of the plea of his right “to testify in his own behalf”. Having failed either to move to withdraw his plea on this ground prior to the imposition of sentence or to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPL 440.10, the defendant has not preserved this issue for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2] *People v Hoke,*62 NY2d 1022; *People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Ortiz,*105 AD2d 809; *People v Carrisquello,*106 AD2d 513). Moreover, were we to review this issue in the interest of justice, vacatur would not be required because the allocution satisfied the requirements of *People v Harris*(61 NY2d 9).

The defendant also contends that his sentence is unduly harsh and excessive and should therefore be modified. The sentence, however, was imposed in accordance with the plea agreement *(see, People v La Lande,*104 AD2d 1052; *People v Nelson,*104 AD2d 1055; *People v Kazepis,*101 AD2d 816). Moreover, we find no basis for modification in the interest of justice *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

Finally, we have reviewed the contentions raised by the defendant in his *pro se*brief and find them to be without merit *(see, People v Brown,*45 NY2d 852; *People v Johnson,*105 AD2d 711). Mollen, P. J., Titone, Lazer and Thompson, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 99.1**

**AGGREGATE      SCHEDULE OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST DISTRIBUTIONS TO CERTIFICATEHOLDERS**

| Class  | Interest     | Principal    | Losses | Ending                  Balance |
|--------|--------------|--------------|--------|---------------------------------|
| A1     | 2,222,645.58 | 4,651,956.04 | -      | 133,948,043.96                  |
| A2     | 170,972.73   | -            | -      | 9,567,717.43                    |
| A3     | 164,741.98   | 344,801.91   | -      | 9,928,198.09                    |
| A4     | 12,672.45    | -            | -      | 709,157.01                      |
| A5     | 2,393,618.33 | 4,651,956.04 | -      | 133,948,043.96                  |
| A6     | 177,414.43   | 344,801.91   | -      | 9,928,198.09                    |
| A7     | 2,387,387.57 | 4,996,757.94 | -      | 143,876,242.06                  |
| A8     | 183,645.19   | -            | -      | 10,276,874.43                   |
| A9     | 2,571,032.76 | 4,996,757.94 | -      | 143,876,242.06                  |
| APO    | -            | 81,896.79    | -      | 3,618,197.20                    |
| AR     | 0.87         | 100.00       | -      | -                               |
| B1     | 108,938.37   | 8,901.57     | -      | 6,219,098.44                    |
| B2     | 24,365.94    | 1,990.98     | -      | 1,391,009.01                    |
| B3     | 12,891.39    | 1,053.38     | -      | 735,946.62                      |
| B4     | 17,194.35    | 1,404.99     | -      | 981,595.02                      |
| B5     | 15,777.53    | 1,289.20     | -      | 900,710.79                      |
| B6     | 18,635.02    | 1,522.70     | -      | 1,063,840.30                    |
|   |         |         |   |                            |
|   |         |         |   |                            |
|   |         |         |   |                            |

----
Exhibit 32.1
  SECTION 1350
CERTIFICATIONS
  This
Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of Section 1350
of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the
United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of
the Securities Act of 1934, as amended.
  The
undersigned, who are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
American Realty Capital Trust, Inc. (the “Company”), each hereby certify as
follows:
  The
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company (the “Report”), which accompanies
this Certificate, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and all information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
   Dated
this 18thday of March,
2010.
  /s/
      Nicholas S. SchorschNicholas
      S. SchorschChief
      Executive OfficerChairman of the Board of Directors(Principal Executive Officer)/s/
      Brian S. BlockBrian
      S. BlockExecutive Vice PresidentChief
      Financial Officer(Principal Accounting Officer)
Randall K. TAYLOR, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-7022.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D16-5682

_____________________________

CHARLES EDWARD LEE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bradford County.

William E. Davis, Judge.

July 17, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and ROWE, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and A. Victoria Wiggins, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Holly N. Simcox, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**JOHN R. BARNES, JR.,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 252 MAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 22nd day of September, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of** 

**Appeal is** DENIED

**.**

**Justice Donohue notes her dissent.**
EXHIBIT 31.1

                            SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

      I, Robert E. Fitzgerald, Chief Executive Officer of YDI Wireless, Inc.,
certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this amended quarterly report on Form 10-Q of YDI
Wireless, Inc.;

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

      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.


Date: March 25, 2004                              /s/ Robert E. Fitzgerald
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Robert E. Fitzgerald
                                              Chief Executive Officer
#### BEEKMAN V. THE STATE.

*Crime.*

(Decided Nov. 27 1907.)

Appeal from Clarke County Court.

*672Wilson & Aldridge, for appellant.

Alexander M. Garber, Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion by

Anderson, J.

Affirmed.

Tyson, C. J., Dowdell, and McClellan, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Douglas Lee, Appellant, v Harold J. Smith, as Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, Respondent.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed *(see, Matter of Jermosen v Smith,*84 AD2d 932, *lv denied*56 NY2d 711). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Wolfgang, J. — art 78.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and O’Donnell, JJ.
Anne B. SANDERS, petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al.

No. 12-9964.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until July 8, 2013, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

SEAN EUGENE TAPP,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 185 MM 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2nd day of February, 2017, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or 

Extraordinary Relief and the Application for an Immediate Hearing are DENIED.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1700 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain capers preserved by vinegar 

or acetic acid. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 19, 2005 

Mr. PASCRELL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain capers preserved 

by vinegar or acetic acid. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN CAPERS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.20.03 Capers, prepared or preserved by vinegar or acetic 

acid, in containers holding 

more than 3.4 kg (provided 

for in subheading 

2001.90.10) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2 

•HR 1700 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
2023 Risk Review | 79

ADC Acquisition, Development, and Construction

C&I Commercial and Industrial

Call Reports Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income

CLO Collateralized Loan Obligation

CRE Commercial Real Estate

FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Administration

FHLB Federal Home Loan Bank

FinCEN Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

GDP Gross Domestic Product

KBW Keefe, Bruyette, and Woods (Bank Index)

LCD Leveraged Commentary and Data (S&P)

NASDAQ National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations (Market Index)

NIM Net Interest Margin

PPP Paycheck Protection Program

S&P Standard and Poor’s (S&P 500)

SBA Small Business Administration

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 29-1 filed 09/19/16 page 1 of 32
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 29-1 filed 09/19/16 page 2 of 32
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 29-1 filed 09/19/16 page 3 of 32
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 29-1 filed 09/19/16 page 4 of 32
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 29-1 filed 09/19/16 page 5 of 32
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 29-1 filed 09/19/16 page 6 of 32
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 29-1 filed 09/19/16 page 7 of 32
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 29-1 filed 09/19/16 page 8 of 32
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 29-1 filed 09/19/16 page 9 of 32
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 29-1 filed 09/19/16 page 10 of 32
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 29-1 filed 09/19/16 page 11 of 32
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 29-1 filed 09/19/16 page 12 of 32
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 29-1 filed 09/19/16 page 13 of 32
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 29-1 filed 09/19/16 page 14 of 32
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 29-1 filed 09/19/16 page 15 of 32
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 29-1 filed 09/19/16 page 16 of 32
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 29-1 filed 09/19/16 page 17 of 32
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 29-1 filed 09/19/16 page 18 of 32
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 29-1 filed 09/19/16 page 19 of 32
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 29-1 filed 09/19/16 page 20 of 32
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 29-1 filed 09/19/16 page 21 of 32
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 29-1 filed 09/19/16 page 22 of 32
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 29-1 filed 09/19/16 page 23 of 32
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 29-1 filed 09/19/16 page 24 of 32
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 29-1 filed 09/19/16 page 25 of 32
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 29-1 filed 09/19/16 page 26 of 32
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 29-1 filed 09/19/16 page 27 of 32
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 29-1 filed 09/19/16 page 28 of 32
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 29-1 filed 09/19/16 page 29 of 32
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 29-1 filed 09/19/16 page 30 of 32
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 29-1 filed 09/19/16 page 31 of 32
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 29-1 filed 09/19/16 page 32 of 32
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1524

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States PostOffice Building’’. Overland Park, Kansas, as the ‘‘Ed Eilert Post al Service located at 12433 Antioch Road in

109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1524

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 12433 Antioch Road in Overland Park, Kansas, as the ‘‘Ed Eilert Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1524 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 12433 Antioch Road in Overland Park, Kansas,

4 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Ed Eilert Post Of5 fice Building’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

10 to the ‘‘Ed Eilert Post Office Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives April 26, 2005.

Attest:

Clerk.