alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AO 435

(Rev. /) ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS FOR COURT USE ONLY

TRANSCRIPT ORDER DUE DATE:

Please Read Instructions:

1. NAME 2. PHONE NUMBER 3. DATE

4. '(/,9(5< ADDRESS25(0$,/ 5. CITY 6. STATE 7. ZIP CODE

8. CASE NUMBER 9. JUDGE DATES OF PROCEEDINGS

10. FROM 11. TO

12. CASE NAME LOCATION OF PROCEEDINGS

13. CITY 14. STATE

15. ORDER FOR

u APPEAL u CRIMINAL u CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT u BANKRUPTCY

u NON-APPEAL u CIVIL u IN FORMA PAUPERIS u OTHER (Specify)

16. TRANSCRIPT REQUESTED (Specify portion(s) and date(s) of proceeding(s) for which transcript is requested)

PORTIONS DATE(S) PORTION(S) DATE(S)

u VOIR DIRE u TESTIMONY (Specify Witness)

u OPENING STATEMENT (Plaintiff)

u OPENING STATEMENT (Defendant)

u CLOSING ARGUMENT (Plaintiff) u PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDING (Spcy)

u CLOSING ARGUMENT (Defendant)

u OPINION OF COURT

u JURY INSTRUCTIONS u OTHER (Specify)

u SENTENCING

u BAIL HEARING

17. ORDER

CATEGORY

ORIGINAL

(Includes Certified Copy to

Clerk for Records of the Court)

FIRST COPY ADDITIONAL

COPIES NO. OF PAGES ESTIMATE COSTS

'D\

NO. OF COPIES

u u

14-Day

NO. OF COPIES

u u

'D\

NO. OF COPIES

u u

3-Day

NO. OF COPIES

u u

1H[W'D\

NO. OF COPIES

u u

+RXU

NO. OF COPIES

u u

REALTIME u u

CERTIFICATION (18. & 19.)

By signing below, I certify that I will pay all charges

(deposit plus additional).

ESTIMATE TOTAL

$ 0.00

18. SIGNATURE PROCESSED BY

19. DATE PHONE NUMBER

TRANSCRIPT TO BE PREPARED BY COURT ADDRESS

DATE BY

ORDER RECEIVED

DEPOSIT PAID DEPOSIT PAID

TRANSCRIPT ORDERED TOTAL CHARGES $ 0.00

TRANSCRIPT RECEIVED LESS DEPOSIT $ 0.00

ORDERING PARTY NOTIFIED

TO PICK UP TRANSCRIPT TOTAL REFUNDED

PARTY RECEIVED TRANSCRIPT TOTAL DUE $ 0.00

DISTRIBUTION: COURT COPY TRANSCRIPTION COPY ORDER RECEIPT ORDER COPY

Melissa R. Smith (903) 934-8450 11/19/2024

303 South Washington Avenue Marshall Texas 75670

2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Roy S. Payne 11/19/2024 11/19/2024

Headwater Research LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al Marshall TX

Markman Hearing 11/19/2024

1

0.00

/s/ Melissa R. Smith

11/19/2024

0.00

0.00

0.00

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 111 Filed 11/19/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:

7755
EXHIBIT 23.1


          Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Prospectuses constituting part of the Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (Nos. 333-26053, 33-86948, 33-99058, 333-00686, 333-46215), and on
Form S-3 (Nos. 333-14931, 333-25975, 333-39287 and 333-47595) of The
Panda Project, Inc. of our report dated March 10, 1998 appearing on
page F-2 of this Transition Report on Form 10-K.  We also consent to
the incorporation by reference of our report on the Financial
Statement Schedule, which appears on page F-25 of this Form 10-K.



/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP
-------------------------
PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP



Fort Lauderdale, Florida
March 10, 1998
Gregory Alan ROWE, Petitioner, v. Michael CLARK, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Albion, et al.

No. 19-6833

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
John DOE, petitioner, v. KAWEAH DELTA HOSPITAL, et al.

No. 18-5802.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of
Principal Financial OfficerPursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350As
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Stephen T. Wills, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of Palatin Technologies, Inc., hereby certify, to my
knowledge, that the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009
of Palatin Technologies, Inc. (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Palatin Technologies, Inc.

Dated: November 13, 2009

|                                                                                                                 | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|/s/ Stephen T. Wills                                                                                             | 
|Stephen T. Wills, Executive Vice President - Operations andChief
Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) |
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 Eastern District of Texas

Valtrus Innovations Ltd.

2:23cv444

T-Mobile USA, Inc.; T-Mobile US, Inc.; Sprint Corp; 

OnePlus Technology (Shenzen) Co., Ltd. and 

OnePlus Mobile Communications (Guangdong) Co., 

Ltd. 

T-Mobile USA, Inc. Matthew G. Berkowitz 

Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP 

100 Marine Parkway, Suite 300 

Redwood Shores, CA 94065 

mberkowitz@reichmanjorgensen.com

9/27/2023

Case 2:23-cv-00444-JRG Document 7-4 Filed 09/27/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 333
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

2:23cv444 0.00 Print Save As... Reset

Case 2:23-cv-00444-JRG Document 7-4 Filed 09/27/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 334
##### 



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 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of MediaNews Group, Inc. (the Company) for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald A. Mayo, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:  (1)
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition of the Company as of the dates indicated and results
of operations of the Company for the periods indicated. /s/ RONALD A. MAYORonald A. MayoVice President and
Chief Financial OfficerApril 29, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 506 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 506

         To authorize legal representation in Bilbrey v. Tyler.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 26, 2012

   Mr. Reid (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
         To authorize legal representation in Bilbrey v. Tyler.

Whereas, in the case of Bilbrey v. Tyler, No. 18C04-1111-SC-2209, pending in 
        Delaware Circuit Court No. 4, Small Claims Division, in Muncie, Indiana, 
        the plaintiff has sought testimony from former Senator Evan Bayh and an 
        unnamed employee of his former Senate office;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to represent former Members and former employees of 
        the Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request for testimony 
        relating to their official responsibilities;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and Rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, 
        be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the 
        Senate;
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the 
        privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent 
Senator Bayh and former employees of his Senate office in Bilbrey v. 
Tyler and related proceedings.
    Sec. 2.  Senator Bayh's former director of constituent services, 
Karen Railing, is authorized to submit a declaration in this case.
                                 <all>
```
Babubhai PATEL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6010.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 15, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
FI FTH DI VI SI ON DI LLA R D, C. J. , REESE and BETHEL, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be p h y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s M ar ch 20, 2018



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 6 A0 20 1

. HENRY COUNTY BOARD O F EDUCATION v . S. G

. B E T H E L , J u d g e. Ou r earl ier d eci s i on in t hi s cas e, Hen r y Co u n t y Bo ar d o f E d u ca t i o n v. S

. G. , 3 3 7 Ga. Ap p
. 26 0 (7 8 6 SE2 d 9 0 7 ) ( 2 0 1 6 ) , was rev ers ed b y t he Su p rem e Co u rt o f
Geo rg i a, Hen r

y C o u n t y B o a r d o

f Ed u ca t i o n v. S

. G

. , 3 01 Ga. 7 9 4 (8 0 4 SE2 d 4 2 7 ) (2 0 1 7). W e n o w v acat e o u r earl i er d eci s i o n , an d we ad o p t t he o p i n io n an d d eci s i o n

o f t h e Su p rem e Co u rt as o ur o wn
. W e rev ers e t h e ju d g m en t o f t h e Su p eri o r Co u rt an d

rem an d t h e cas e wi th d i rect i o n t h at i t , i n tu rn , rem an d t o t h e Bo ard o f Ed u cat i o n fo r fu rt her fi n d i n g s an d co n cl u s io ns aft er ap p l y i n g t he ap p ro p ri at e l aw t o t h e ev i d en ce i n acco rd an ce wi t h t h i s o p i n i o n
. Ju d g men t rever

s ed an d ca s e r e m an d

ed wi t h d i r ect i o n
. Di l l a r d , C. J., a n d
Rees e, J., co n cu r .
Keith PUNTENNEY, et al., Petitioners, v. IOWA UTILITIES BOARD, et al.

No. 19-447

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Iowa denied.

Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 21

                    Subsidiaries of Maxwell Shoe Company Inc.
                    -----------------------------------------

Sprague Company
101 Sprague Street

P.O. Box 37
Readville (Boston), Massachusetts 02137

State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization - Delaware

Ownership by Maxwell Shoe Company Inc. - 100%

Maxwell Retail Inc.
101 Sprague Street
P.O. Box 37
Readville (Boston), Massachusetts 02137

State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization - Delaware

Ownership by Maxwell Shoe Company Inc. - 100%

Maxwell Footwear of California, Inc.
23455 Cloverdale Court
Newhall, California 91321

State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization - Delaware

Ownership by Maxwell Shoe Company Inc. - 100%

MSC Holdings LLC
23455 Cloverdale Court
Newhall, California 91321

State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization - Delaware

Ownership by Maxwell Shoe Company Inc. - 100%

J&D Retail, Inc.
101 Sprague Street
P.O. Box 37
Readville (Boston), Massachusetts 02137

State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization - Delaware

Ownership by Maxwell Shoe Company Inc. - 100%

J&D Security Company, Inc.
101 Sprague Street
P.O. Box 37
Readville (Boston), Massachusetts 02137

State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization - Delaware

Ownership by Maxwell Shoe Company Inc. - 100%
```

```

----

Updated December 30, 2013
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, et al., petitioners, v. NEW YORK, et al.

No. 18-966.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 15, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari before judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. The case will be set for argument in the second week of the April argument session.
```
 
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 10/08/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       48,906
COMMITMENTS
  10,019    7,678      755   24,099   29,988   34,873   38,421   14,033   10,485

CHANGES FROM 10/01/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      2,079)
   2,633     -471       30   -1,035    3,664    1,628    3,223      451   -1,144

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    20.5     15.7      1.5     49.3     61.3     71.3     78.6     28.7     21.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       76)
      14       18        8       37       27       55       49
```

----

Updated October 28, 2013
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

VALVE CORPORATION

Defendants.

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-cv-419

REVISED NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, Symbology Innovations, LLC hereby submits this Notice of Voluntary Dismissal 

with Prejudice of Defendant Valve Corporation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

41(a)(1)(A)(i). Defendant has not served either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. 

Dated: July 29, 2024 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Randall Garteiser

Randall Garteiser 

 Texas Bar No. 24038912

 rgarteiser@ghiplaw.com

GARTEISER HONEA, PLLC

119 W. Ferguson Street

Tyler, Texas 75702

Telephone: (903) 705-7420

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 84 Filed 07/29/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1687
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that all counsel of record who have consented to

electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF 

system on this Monday, July 29, 2024.

/s/ Randall Garteiser

Randall Garteiser 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 84 Filed 07/29/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1688
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 361

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS 

DIVISION III 

No. CV-15-980

HEATHER CROW

APPELLANT

V.

ADVANCED DENTAL IMPLANTS AND 

DENTURE CENTER 

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered: August 31, 2016

APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 

COMMISSION 

 [NO. G401349] 

AFFIRMED

RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge

Heather Crow appeals the October 13, 2015 opinion of the Arkansas Workers’ 

Compensation Commission (“the Commission”) that affirmed and adopted the April 29, 

2015 opinion of the Administrative Law Judge, which denied Crow’s request for benefits 

pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-505(a)(1). Crow argues that the decision 

of the Commission is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm. 

We review a decision of the Commission to determine whether there is substantial 

evidence to support it. Queen v. Nortel Networks, 2013 Ark. App. 523. We review the 

evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to 

the Commission’s findings. Id. It is the Commission’s province to weigh the evidence and 

determine what is most credible. Id. The issue on appeal is not whether we would have 

reached a different result or whether the evidence would have supported a contrary 
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 361

2 

conclusion; we will affirm if reasonable minds could reach the Commission’s conclusion. 

Id.

 It is the Commission’s duty, not ours, to make credibility determinations, to weigh 

the evidence, and to resolve conflicts in the evidence and testimony. Adams v. Bemis Co., 

Inc., 2010 Ark. App. 859, at 2. Where the Commission has denied a claim because of the 

claimant’s failure to meet her burden of proof, the substantial-evidence standard of review 

requires that we affirm if the Commission’s opinion displays a substantial basis for the denial 

of relief. Bolus v. Jack Cecil Hardware, 2013 Ark. App. 288. Because this is the sole issue now 

before us, and because the Commission’s opinion adequately explains the decision, we 

affirm by memorandum opinion. In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 

63 (1985) (per curiam).

Affirmed. 

 VIRDEN and GRUBER, JJ., agree. 

Martin Law Firm, by: Aaron L. Martin, for appellant.

Smith, Williams & Meeks, L.L.P., by: Gene Williams, for appellees.
**EXHIBIT 23.01**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-84726, 33-84728,333-25981, and 333-114019 of Gaming Partners InternationalCorporation (formerly known as Paul-Son Gaming Corporation) and Subsidiaries onForm S-8 and Amendment No. 3 to Registration Statement No. 333-86010of Gaming Partners International Corporation and Subsidiaries on Form S-3,of our report dated March 31, 2006, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-Kof Gaming Partners International Corporation and Subsidiaries for the yearended December 31, 2005.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Las Vegas, NevadaMarch 28, 2006

----
Donatos SARRAS, petitioner, v. UKNOWN PARTY.

No. 18-6923.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 10.10.2**

 

AMENDMENT NO. 2

TO

CHANGE OF CONTROL SEVERANCE AGREEMENT

 

This Amendment (the “**Amendment**”), dated as of April 8, 2003, to that certain Change of Control SeveranceAgreement, dated as of April 8, 1999 (the “**Agreement**”), as amended as of April 3, 2001, is by and between Maxwell Shoe Company Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “**Company**”), and Richard J. Bakos (the“**Employee**”). Initially capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement. 

 

RECITALS 

 

The Company and the Employee wish to amend the Agreement to extend the term during which the Employee may be entitled to Severance Benefits upon a Changeof Control. 

 

The parties hereto agree as follows: 

 

AGREEMENT 

 

1. Amendment. The first sentence of Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 

 

“In the event of a Change of Control of the Company during the six-yearperiod from the date of this Agreement, the Employee shall be entitled to the benefits set forth in Section 2 (the “**Severance Benefits**”), but only if: 

 

(a) Employee’s employment by the Company or the successor owner of its business is terminated by the Company or suchsuccessor without Cause (as defined in Section 4) during the two years after the occurrence of the Change of Control; or 

 

(b) the Employee terminates his employment with the Company or its successor for Good Reason (as defined in Section 5) during the two years after theoccurrence of the Change of Control.” 

 

2. General. 

 

(a) This Amendment may be executed in two counterparts each of which shallbe deemed an original but both of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 

 

(b) This Amendment shall be construed in accordance with and governed for all purposes by the laws of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

(c) Except as set forth herein, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

 

This Amendment has been executed by the parties on this 8th day ofApril, 2003. 

 

MAXWELL SHOE COMPANY INC.
   EMPLOYEE
By:
 /s/    Mark J. Cocozza           
 

/s/    Richard J.Bakos        
     Mark J. Cocozza,   Richard J. Bakos  Chairman of the Board      and Chief Executive Officer    
 

2
James Nathaniel DOUSE, Petitioner, v. United STATES, et al.;

James Nathaniel Douse, Petitioner, v. Adam Bain.

No. 19M16

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Motion for leave to proceed as a veteran denied.
EX-10.7(c)



 Exhibit 10.7(c) 

June 1, 2018 
 Secor
Capital Advisors L.P. 
 One Penn Plaza – Suite 4625 

New York, New York 10119 

Attention: Ms. Pattie Hand 
  

	 	Re:	 Management Agreement Renewal 



Dear Ms. Hand: 
 We are
writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to which reference is made below (the “Management Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2019 and all other
provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged. 
  

	 	•	 	 Secor Master Fund L.P. 



	 	•	 	 Emerging CTA Portfolio L.P. 



	 	•	 	 Ceres Tactical Systematic L.P. 



Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it to the attention of
Mr. Patrick T. Egan at 522 Fifth Avenue – 7th Floor, New York, NY 10036. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 212-296-6808. 

 

			
	 Very truly yours,

	 CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Patrick T. Egan 

		 	 Patrick T. Egan

		 	 President and Director


  

			
	 SECOR CAPITAL ADVISORS L.P.


  

			
		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Raymond Iwanowski


  

			
		
	 Print Name:
	 	  Raymond Iwanowski

		
	 PE/tr