alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.16

 

December 12, 2013

 

To UBIC, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Borrower”)

Lenders

 

JBY1 Billion Revolving Credit Facility Agreement (executed on December 28, 2012)

For UBIC, Inc.

<Notice in Reply to Your Request to Extend the Lending Obligation (Extension Statement)>

 

	
The Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi-UFJ, Ltd.
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
[Seal]
    
	
Syndication Dept.
    	
 
    


 

We hope this finds you well.  We also appreciate your continued support.

 

Regarding the aforementioned agreement, this is to inform you i) that the lenders have replied to the Borrower’s request to extend the lending obligations that was made in its Written Request to Extend the Lending Obligations dated November 12, 2013, as follows; and ii) that the lending obligations are extended and the extended commitment period will be due on December 26, 2014 pursuant to the provisions of Article 32, Paragraph 3 of the aforementioned agreement.

 

	
Lender
    	
 
    	
Reply
    	
 
    	
Commitment Amount at
   the time of reply
    
	
Sumitomo   Mitsui Banking Corporation
    	
 
    	
Agreed
    	
 
    	
JPY0.2 billion
    
	
The   Bank of Yokohama, Ltd.
    	
 
    	
Agreed
    	
 
    	
JPY0.2 billion
    
	
Mizuho   Bank, Ltd.
    	
 
    	
Agreed
    	
 
    	
JPY0.1 billion
    
	
Resona   Bank, Limited.
    	
 
    	
Agreed
    	
 
    	
JPY0.1 billion
    
	
The   Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi-UFJ, Ltd.
    	
 
    	
Agreed
    	
 
    	
JPY0.4 billion
    
	
Total
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
JPY1 billion
    


 

End
EX-4.2



 Exhibit 4.2 
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO 
 IXIA 

2010 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN, AS AMENDED 
 The Ixia 2010 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as amended (the “ESPP”), is hereby further amended as follows, effective as of the date set forth below: 

Attachment A to the ESPP is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as set forth on Attachment A hereto. 

Effective as of: May 9, 2013 
 *        *        *        * 







 Exhibit 4.2 
 ATTACHMENT A* 
 IXIA 

2010 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN, AS AMENDED 
 DESIGNATED SUBSIDIARIES 
  

					
			
	 	 	Anue Systems, Inc.	 	 
			
		 	BreakingPoint Systems, Inc.	 	
			
		 	Ixia Australia Pty. Ltd.	 	
		
		 	Ixia Communications Canada Limited
		
		 	Ixia Communications Kabushiki Kaisha
			
		 	Ixia Federal Systems, Inc.	 	
			
		 	Ixia Hong Kong Limited	 	
			
		 	Ixia Korea, Inc.	 	
			
		 	Ixia Pte. Ltd.	 	
		
		 	IxiaCom Technologies Sdn. Bhd.
		
		 	Ixia Technologies Europe Limited (including branch offices in Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden)
		
		 	Ixia Technologies International Limited
		
		 	Ixia Technologies Private Limited
		
		 	Ixia Technologies (Shanghai) Company Limited (including branch office in Beijing)
			
		 	S.C. Ixia SRL	 	
			
		 	VeriWave, Inc.	 	

  
  

*     Effective as of May 9, 2013
Exhibit32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CFO PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MortgageIT Holdings, Inc. (the"Company") for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the "Report"), Glenn J.Mouridy, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of hisknowledge:

|           |                                                                                                                     |
|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1)  | The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and |

|           |                                                                                                                                                   |
|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2)  | Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany. |

|        |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |  |  |  |  |
|--------|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|
|   |  | By:/s/ GLENN J. MOURIDY                                                                                        |
|   |  |         Glenn J.Mouridy        President and Chief FinancialOfficer        November 9,2005 |
|        |

This certification accompanies theReport pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 andshall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff uponrequest.

----
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Derrick Todd LEE.

No. 2003-KD-2261.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 13, 2003.

In re Lee, Derrick Todd; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 06-03-655; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003-KW-1705.

Denied.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 22

- 174 5

_____________________________
J ACARIE R UCKER , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Francis Allman
, Jr., Judge

. December 18, 2023

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
B ILBREY , N ORDBY , and T ANENBAUM , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender; Megan Long and Jasmine Dixon, Assistant Public Defenders, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4639 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4639

 To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize the adoption of a 
 military working dog by the family of a deceased or seriously wounded 
       member of the Armed Forces who was the handler of the dog.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 22, 2010

  Mr. Jones introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize the adoption of a 
 military working dog by the family of a deceased or seriously wounded 
       member of the Armed Forces who was the handler of the dog.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Corporal Dustin Lee Memorial Act''.

SEC. 2. ADOPTION OF MILITARY WORKING DOG BY FAMILY OF DECEASED OR 
              SERIOUSLY WOUNDED MEMBER OF THE ARMED FORCES WHO WAS THE 
              DOG'S HANDLER.

    Section 2583(c) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``Military animals''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(2) For purposes of making a determination under subsection 
(a)(2), unusual or extraordinary circumstances may include situations 
in which the handler of a military working dog is killed in action, 
dies of wounds received in action, or is so seriously wounded in action 
that the member will (or most likely will) receive a medical discharge. 
If the Secretary of the military department concerned determines that 
an adoption is justified in such a situation, the military working dog 
shall be made available for adoption only by the immediate family of 
the member.''.
                                 <all>
```
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1753

_____________________________

JOHN MCKAY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Gadsden County.

Barbara K. Hobbs, Judge.

June 13, 2018

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(3).

ROWE, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________

John McKay, pro se, Appellant.
2

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4559 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4559

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the time period 
 for contributing military death gratuities to Roth IRAs and Coverdell 
                      education savings accounts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 1, 2014

 Mr. Schock (for himself, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. Tsongas, and Mrs. Noem) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the time period 
 for contributing military death gratuities to Roth IRAs and Coverdell 
                      education savings accounts.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME PERIOD FOR CONTRIBUTING MILITARY DEATH 
              GRATUITIES TO ROTH IRAS AND COVERDELL EDUCATION SAVINGS 
              ACCOUNTS.

    (a) In General.--Sections 408A(e)(2)(A) and 530(d)(9)(A) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are each amended by striking ``1-year 
period'' and inserting ``3-year period''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to amounts received under section 1477 of title 10, United States 
Code, or under section 1967 of title 38 of such Code, after the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Donald J. Urgo, Doing Business as Donald J. Urgo & Associates, Respondent, v Sitaram L. Patel et al., Appellants.

[719 NYS2d 120]

In an action, *inter alia,*for specific per*519formance of a joint venture agreement, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), dated January 31, 2000, as denied that branch of their motion which was pursuant to CPLR 6514 (a) for mandatory cancellation of the notice of pendency filed by the plaintiff.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of their motion which sought mandatory cancellation of the plaintiffs notice of pendency. CPLR 6501 permits a notice of pendency to be filed “in any action * * * in which the judgment demanded would affect the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of, real property.” Since the plaintiff seeks specific performance of a joint venture agreement which would require the defendants to transfer the subject real property to the enterprise, this action falls within the scope of the statute *(see, Mitchell Field Realty Corp. v United Artists Communications,*188 AD2d 451; *Peterson v Kelly,*173 AD2d 688; *Yorktown Floorworld v Wagon Prods.,*170 AD2d 823; *Flotteron v Steinberg,*88 AD2d 968; *cf., Felske v Bernstein,*173 AD2d 677; *General Prop. Corp. v Diamond,*29 AD2d 173). Krausman, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
In the MATTER OF: R.J.

No. 419P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2018

Mr. David W. Andrews, Assistant Appellate Defender, for R.J.

Mr. Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender

Ms. Josephine N. Tetteh, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina

Ms. Ariel E. Harris, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Strategic Behavioral Center

Mr. Milind Kumar Dongre, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Respondent on the 12th of December 2017 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the State of NC, the following order *245was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 12th of December 2017 by Respondent in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2018."
In the MATTER OF Hoyt Shay NEAL, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2018-000223

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

September 20, 2018

**556ORDER

On February 8, 2018, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel forwarded to this Court an order of the Arizona Supreme Court, dated July 17, 2017, suspending respondent for two years from the practice of law in Arizona, retroactive to June 13, 2017, the date respondent was suspended for failure to pay bar dues, followed by probation for two years. Thereafter, pursuant to Rule 29(b) of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary **557Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR, the Clerk of Court sent a letter to respondent, which included a copy of the disciplinary action, giving him thirty days to inform this Court of any claim that imposition of the identical discipline in South Carolina was not warranted and the reasons for any such claim. *See* Rule 29(b), RLDE ("Upon receipt of a certified copy of an order demonstrating that a lawyer admitted to practice in this state has been disciplined or transferred to incapacity inactive status in another jurisdiction, the Supreme Court shall issue a notice to the lawyer ... *[d]irecting* that the lawyer ... inform the Supreme Court, within 30 days from service of the notice, of any claim ... that the imposition of the identical discipline or transfer to incapacity inactive status in this state would be unwarranted and the reasons for that claim." (emphasis added) ). Respondent did not respond. Accordingly, the Court places respondent on interim suspension pursuant to Rule 17(c), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR (a lawyer who fails to respond to inquiries from the Supreme Court may be placed on interim suspension).

IT IS ORDERED that respondent's license to practice law in this state is suspended until he responds to the Clerk's letter of April 11, 2018.

*/s/ Donald W. Beatty*, C. J.

FOR THE COURT
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-27-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-27-1996
<CASH>                                         839,889
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,415,245
<ALLOWANCES>                                   509,000
<INVENTORY>                                 19,123,122
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            41,055,191
<PP&E>                                      49,393,369
<DEPRECIATION>                              23,084,560
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             107,895,345
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,670,110
<BONDS>                                     53,814,050
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 13,667,814
<COMMON>                                        58,650
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,293,705
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               107,895,345
<SALES>                                    128,215,995
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           128,418,179
<CGS>                                       98,282,019
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               98,282,019
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            23,932,427
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,080,762
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,122,971
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,275,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            847,971
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   847,971
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Undre GIBSON.

No. 2003-KH-1950.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 29, 2003.

In re Gibson, Undre;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Webster, 26th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 60,762.

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the application to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, for its consideration.
Thomas E. FREEMAN, Jr. v. NC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES CENTRAL REGIONAL HOSPITAL and Whitaker PRTF

No. 18A18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 5, 2018

Thomas E. Freeman, Jr., for Freeman, Thomas E. (Jr.).

Joseph E. Elder, Assistant Attorney General, for NC Department of Health And Human Services, et al.

*598***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Petitioner on the 12th of January 2018 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of April 2018."
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed August 15 , 2024.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 24

- 00273

- CV

IN RE C. H. AND L. H. , Relator s

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 257th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2019

- 33397



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On April 15, 2024 , relator s C. H. and L. H. filed a petition for writ of

m andamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R.
App. P. 52. In the petition, relator s ask this Court to compel the Honorable Sandra2 Peake, presiding judge of the 257th District Court of Harris County

, to vacate the

trial court’s March 1 8 , 2024 order denying relators’ motion to transfer venue

. Relators have not established that they are entitled to mandamus relief.
Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Poissant.
Rebecca Anne EDWARDS, Plaintiff v. The BIPARTISAN STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS ENFORCEMENT; Kim Westbrook Strach, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the Bipartisan State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement; and The State of North Carolina, Defendants and Philip E. Berger, in his official capacity as President Pro Tempore of the Senate; and Timothy K. Moore, in his official capacity as Speaker of the House, Intervenors

No. 269P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 20, 2018

D. Martin Warf, Attorney at Law, Noah H. Huffstetler, III, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Matthew A. Abee, Attorney at Law, for Berger, Philip E., et al.

Narendra K. Ghosh, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, Kenneth A. Soo, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Paul E. Smith, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, Colin Shive, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Edwards, Rebecca Anne.

Amar Majmundar, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Alexander McC. Peters, Special Deputy Attorney General, Olga Vysotskaya de Brito, Special Deputy Attorney General, James Bernier, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 27th of August 2018 by Intervenor (Berger & Moore) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

*280"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of September 2018."

Jackson, J. and Ervin, J. recused
#### In re Appeal of Decision of DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 01-PDB-011.

No. 2003-OB-0104.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 29, 2003.

In re Lawson, Joseph;—Plaintiff; Applying for Appeal of Decision of Disciplinary Board Office of the Disciplinary Board, No. 01-PDB-011.

Not considered. Not timely filed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Fred George DRAVIS

No. 305P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 13, 2018

James R. Grant, Assistant Appellate Defender, Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, for Dravis, Fred George

Daniel P. O'Brien, L. Michael Dodd, Special Deputy Attorneys General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 13th of September 2018 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of September 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 13th of September 2018 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of September 2018."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).