alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                  EXHIBIT 23(B)
 
                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-80797, No. 333-90616, No. 333-06390, No. 333-
06862 and No. 333-07226) of our report dated January 23, 1998 appearing on
page F-1 of this Form 20-F. We also consent to the application of such report
to the Financial Statement Schedule for the two years ended December 31, 1997
included in this Form 20-F when such schedule is read in conjunction with the
financial statements referred to in our report. The audits referred to in such
report also included this schedule.
 
Price Waterhouse Nederland BV
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
June 25, 1998
#### LASERFACTURING, INC. and The Twentyfirst Century Corporation (doing business as TC Arts & Laserfactures), Plaintiffs-Appellants, V. DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION (Now Old Carco Liquidated Trust), Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2009-1013.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Feb. 3, 2012.

Edward W. Goldstein, Goldstein, Fau-cett & Prebeg, LLP, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Frank C. Cimino Jr., Diekstein Shapiro LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendanb-Ap-pellee.

ORDER

Laserfacturing, Inc. et al. move without opposition to reinstate this appeal.

On January 13, 2012, 2012 WL 1379944, this appeal was dismissed without prejudice to reinstatement because of Old Careo Liquidated Trust (OCLT)’s bankruptcy proceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Laserfacturing states that the bankruptcy judge granted a limited modification of the plan injunction with respect to this appeal provided that the parties waive oral argument and forfeit any additional briefing.

Upon consideration thereof,

It Is OrdeRed That:

(1) The motion for reinstatement is granted. The case is ready to be assigned to a merits panel.

(2) A copy of the motion and this order shall be transmitted to the merits panel assigned to the case to inform the panel of the bankruptcy judge’s order.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 3 (Thursday, January 4, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 853]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-148]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

December 27, 2000.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before February 5, 
2001 to be assured of consideration.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    OMB Number: 1545-1448.
    Regulation Project Number: EE-81-88 Final.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Deductions for Transfers of Property.
    Description: These regulations concern the Secretary's authority to 
require the filing of an information return under Code section 6041 and 
expand the requirement to furnish forms to certain corporate service 
providers.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit, Individuals or 
households, Not-for-profit institutions, Farms.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent: 1 hour.
    Frequency of Response: Annually.
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 1 hour.
    Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear, Internal Revenue Service, Room 
5244, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20224.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt, (202) 395-7860, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.

Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-148 Filed 1-3-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
No. 392.

#### Clarke et al. *v.*Hot Springs Electric Light & Power Co. et al.

October 21, 1935.

*Mr. C. Dickerman Williams*for petitioners.

*Mr. E. E. Enterline*for respondents.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
---

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

I, Ronald Everett, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

| | (1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of GBS Enterprises
      Incorporated for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2010 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 Form 10-Q fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of GBS Enterprises Incorporated.                                                         

|Date: February 22, 2011 | /s/
      Ronald Everett                    
|----------------------- | --------------------------------------------
|                        | Ronald Everett                              
|                        | Chief Financial Officer                     
|                        | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: ANTHONY ERICK ESTRADA,

Relator. §

§

§

§ No. 08

- 11

- 00323

- CR

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Relator, Anthony Estrada

, pro se

, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus, requesting

that this Court order the Honorable Marcos Lizarraga, judge of the 168th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, to grant Relator ’ s motion nunc pro tunc, to correct Relator's record as an

inmate in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to reflect “back

time credit.”

Relief by writ of mandamus is appropriate in instances where the rel ator demonstrates

that there is no adequate remedy at law available to correct the alleged harm, and that the action

sought is not discretionary. See Simon v. Levario , 306 S.W.3d 318, 320 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009)

(orig. proceeding). Based on the record befor e us, Relator has not demonstrated he is entitled to

mandamus relief. See TEX.R.APP.P. 52.3. Accordingly, the petition is DENIED.

January 2 5 , 2012

________________________________________________ ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Antcliff, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William James MEADERS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-7508.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 9, 2012.

Decided: Feb. 14, 2012.

William James Meaders, Appellant Pro Se. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William James Meaders appeals the district court’s order denying his motion seeking to compel the Government to file a motion for substantial assistance in his case. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Meaders,*No. 3:97-cr-00039-MOC-1 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 26, 2011). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
No. 474.

#### Curreri *v.*Vice, U. S. Marshal.

November 11, 1935.

*Messrs. Hugh L. Smith*and *James F. Brennan*for petitioner.

*Messrs. Alfred Sutro*and *Eugene M. Prince*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned officer of Strategic Storage Trust, Inc., or the Company, hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                    
|----------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|November 13, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Michael S. McClure                                             
|Date              |  |  |  |     |  | Michael S. McClure                                                 
|                  |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)
ex10_2.htm


Exhibit 10.2







AMENDMENT TO


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT







 


This AMENDMENT, dated May 6, 2016 (this “Amendment”), is by and between BankUnited, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Rajinder P. Singh (“Executive”).


 


WHEREAS, the Company and Executive previously entered into an Employment Agreement, dated February 2, 2016 (the “Employment Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to make certain changes to the Employment Agreement.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the Company and Executive agree as follows:


 


1.  The first sentence of Section 3(c)(i) shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:







“In each calendar year during the Employment Term (generally expected to occur during the first calendar quarter of the year), Executive shall be eligible to receive, as determined by the Compensation Committee, a grant of restricted stock units in accordance with this Section 3(c)(i) (the “Performance Units”) having a grant date fair value as determined by the Company, with the final value of each award to be determined by the Compensation Committee as soon as reasonably practicable following the end of the applicable Performance Period (and, in the case of the Performance Period ending on the last day of the Employment Term, notwithstanding the expiration of the Employment Term) based on the level of achievement of pre-established performance criteria with respect to the 3 year period beginning on January 1 of the year in with the Performance Units are granted (each such period, a “Performance Period”).”


 


2.  The first sentence of Section 3(c)(ii) shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:







“In each calendar year during the Employment Term, Executive shall be eligible to receive, as determined by the Compensation Committee, a grant of restricted stock units in accordance with this Section 3(c)(ii) having a grant date fair value as determined by the Company (the “Restricted Stock Units”).”


 


3.  The Employment Agreement, except as expressly modified herein, shall remain in full force and effect.


 


4.  This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, without regard to the conflicts of laws principles thereof that would direct the application of the laws of any other jurisdiction.


 


[signature page follows]


 






  





  











  








 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and Executive have caused this Amendment to the Employment Agreement to be executed and delivered as of the date first written above, to be effective immediately.


 


 



	  	
BANKUNITED, INC.


	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  
	  	
/s/ Leslie N. Lunak

	  
	  	
Name:      

	Leslie N. Lunak	  
	  	
Title:

	Chief Financial Officer	  
	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  
	  	
EXECUTIVE


	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  
	  	
/s/ Rajinder P. Singh

	  
	  	
Rajinder P. Singh
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

May 2000 Session

DANIEL RAY STANFILL v. KAREN ELAINE WRIGHT STANFILL

Appeal from the Fourth Circuit Court for Knox County

No. 60201 Bill Swann, Judge

FILED August 14, 2000

No. E1999-01878-COA-R3-CV 

In this post-divorce proceeding, the trial court modified the judgment of divorce by changing the

custody of Christopher Stanfill (DOB: February 12, 1993) from Karen Elaine Wright Stanfill

(“Mother”) to Daniel Ray Stanfill (“Father”). The trial court also established Mother’s visitation

rights with her son. We affirm.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court 

Affirmed; Case Remanded

CHARLES D. SUSANO,JR.,J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which HOUSTON M. GODDARD,

P.J., and HERSCHEL P. FRANKS, J., joined.

Charles W. Swanson and Jason H. Long, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant Karen Elaine

Wright Stanfill.

William C. Cremins, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellee Daniel Ray Stanfill.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Mother contends that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s judgment finding

a substantial and material change in circumstances warranting a change of Christopher’s custody

from Mother to Father. She also contends that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s

decree establishing Mother’s rights of visitation with the child.

The following well-established principles control the disposition of this appeal:

While many proceedings in the law are factually-driven, this is

particularly true of custody cases, both on initial awards as well as in

cases involving a request to modify a previous award. Rogero v. Pitt,

759 S.W.2d 109, 112 (Tenn. 1988). In such cases, a trial court has

wide discretion, and we will not tamper with that discretion unless the

facts demonstrate that the trier of fact has abused his or her discretion.
-2-

Suttles v. Suttles, 748 S.W.2d 427, 429 (Tenn. 1988). The welfare

of the child is always the paramount consideration. Id.

Brumit v. Brumit, 948 S.W.2d 739, 740 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

We have reviewed the record in this case. We find that the evidence does not preponderate

against the trial court’s decision to change custody, nor does it preponderate against the trial court’s

decision regarding the appropriate amount of Mother’s visitation with Christopher. See Tenn. R.

App. P. 13(d). Pursuant to the provisions of Tenn. Ct. App. R. 10(b), we affirm the judgment of the

trial court by memorandum opinion, having determined that “a formal opinion would have no

precedential value.” Id. Costs on appeal are taxed to the appellant.

___________________________________ 

CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., JUDGE
Piracy of Market Data

Presentation Outline

I. Market Data Services at the New York Board of Trade – the Job 

II. Market Data Distribution – from Exchanges to Vendors to Sub-vendors to 

Users 

III. Leaks could be anywhere 

IV. Protecting Market Data 

V. A Little Detective Work – Discovering the Chinese Pirate 

VI. Working with the other Exchanges 

VII. The Software and Information Industry Association (“SIIA”) and its Financial 

Information Services Division (“FISD”) 

VIII. United States Trade Representative – its Out-of-Cycle Review 

IX. Parallel Paths – Government (CFTC, USTR, Dept of Commerce) and SIIA
II 

Calendar No. 198 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 955 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 18, 2009 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

NOVEMBER 4, 2009 

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 10355 Northeast Valley Road in Rollingbay, 

Washington, as the ‘‘John ‘Bud’ Hawk Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. JOHN ‘‘BUD’’ HAWK POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 10355 Northeast Valley Road in 

6 Rollingbay, Washington, shall be known and designated 

7 as the ‘‘John ‘Bud’ Hawk Post Office’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 955 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘John ‘Bud’ Hawk 

5 Post Office’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 198 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 955 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Post-

‘Bud’ Hawk Post Office’’. Road in Rollingbay, Washington, as the ‘‘John al Service located at 10355 Northeast Valley 

NOVEMBER 4, 2009 

Reported without amendment 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF ODENBERG, ULLAKKO, MURANISHI & CO. LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Reg. Nos. 333-12087, 333-68637, 333-94111, 333-42210, 333-56274, 333-90504 and 333-116740) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan, the 1996 Equity Incentive Plan, the 1996 Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan, the 1997 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and the 2000 Equity Incentive Plan, and Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Reg. Nos. 333-68117, 333-72225, 333-79925, 333-92355, 333-47680, and 333-134507) and in the related Prospectuses of Avigen, Inc. of our reports dated March 7, 2007, with respect to the financial statements of Avigen, Inc., Avigen, Inc. managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Avigen, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006.

| | /s/ ODENBERG, ULLAKKO, MURANISHI & CO. LLP
| | ------------------------------------------

San Francisco, California March 14, 2007

---
Exhibit





EXHIBIT 10.1







THIRD AMENDMENT TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT


This Third Amendment (this “Amendment”) to that certain Severance Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated June 2, 2010, by and between SemGroup Corporation, a Delaware corporation (with any successor, the “Company”), and _____________ (the “Participant”), is adopted and approved by the Company to be effective as of ____________, 2016.


R E C I T A L:
WHEREAS, the parties amended the Agreement by that Amendment to Severance Agreement dated November 18, 2011 and that Second Amendment to Severance Agreement dated December 12, 2013;


WHEREAS, the parties desire to further amend the Agreement to extend the expiration date for an additional two year period; 


NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby amend the Agreement as follows:
1.    Definitions.  All capitalized terms used in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned thereto in the Agreement unless otherwise defined herein.


2.    Authority to Amend.  This Amendment is adopted and approved by the Company with the consent of the Participant pursuant to Section 7.6 of the Agreement.
 
3.    Amendment to Section 1.6 of Agreement.  Section 1.6 of the Agreement shall be amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 


1.6    “Agreement Term”    means the period commencing on the Agreement Date and ending on June 1, 2018.  Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, with respect to a Post-Change Period, the Agreement Term shall end at the end of the Severance Period (as defined in Section 2.1(c)) if applicable, or if there is no such Severance Period, the earliest of the following: (a) the second anniversary of the Change Date, or (b) the Termination Date; provided that:  (i) the obligations, if any, of SemGroup to make payments under this Agreement due to a Separation from Service which occurred during the Agreement Term shall continue beyond the Agreement Term until all such obligations are fully satisfied, and (ii) the obligations of Executive under this Agreement shall continue beyond the Agreement Term until all such obligations are fully satisfied.  Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, this Agreement shall automatically terminate upon the occurrence of a Disqualifying Disaggregation pursuant to Section 1.21.  
        
4.    Continuation of Agreement.  Except as specifically stated herein, this Amendment does not change the terms and conditions of the Agreement which remain in full force and effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Executive and a duly authorized representative of SemGroup Corporation have executed this Amendment to be effective as of the date first written above.














EXHIBIT 10.1



[EXECUTIVE]


    
SemGroup Corporation, acting on behalf of itself and its Subsidiaries and Affiliates
By:     
         Carlin G. Conner
         President and CEO