alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.50

               (English Translation of Original Spanish Document)

Modifying Agreement to the Supply Agreement between The Coca Cola Export
Corporation (COEXPORT) and GRUPO INDUSTRIAL SANTA ENGRACIA S.A. de C.V.
represented by Jose Maria Martinez Brohez (the "GROWER")

DECLARATIONS

Both Parties declare:

        1.      On April 2 1998, a supply agreement (the "Agreement") was signed
                in which the GROWER, among other thing agreed to destine an area
                of 3500 hectares, on land of its property, for the purpose of
                growing Italian Lemon and the subsequent selling of its crop to
                COEXPORT,

        2.      That the Agreement has been executed with delay, because of
                financial problems by the GROWER,

        3.      That the parties agree to reduce the area as well as the number
                of trees destined for the growing of Italian Lemon and want to
                celebrate the Modifying Agreement, and

        4.      That the parties want to reaffirm the "intuit personae"
                character of the initial Agreement and they want to ratify this
                by adding a new paragraph to the twelve clause of the Agreement.

Therefore, both parties agree to the following:

                                    CLAUSES

ONE - Parties agree to reduce the amount of hectares destined for the planting
of Italian Lemon by 500 hectares, which subtracted from the original 3,500
hectares stated in the AGREEMENT, result in 3,000 hectares (three thousand
hectares)

Parties agree to modify Declaration I B, Clauses One, Second and Nine and any
other references to the 3,500 hectares or the number of trees destined for the
growing of Italian Lemon, so that they read 3,000 hectares and 750,000 tress.

SECOND- Clause TWELVE of the Agreement is modified to read as follows -

        " TWELVE - none of the parties can cede its rights and contractual
        obligations without the prior written consent of the other party.
        Anything not contemplated in the AGREEMNT will be guided by the Federal
        District Civil Law".

THIRD - All other clauses of this Agreement remain unchanged and in force as
long as they do not oppose this agreement, until the date of the termination.

This contract is signed in Ciudad Victoria, Tamaulipas on January 15, 2001.


For COEXPORT                                        FOR The GROWER

By: Eduardo Arrocha Gio                             By: Jose Ma. Martinez Brohez

Testigo:                                            Testigo:

By: Eduardo Zago Berra                              By: Manuel Martinez Arteaga
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BENNIE HOPKINS and ROOSEVELT MORRISON KELLUM

No. 749SC862

(Filed 19 February 1975)

1. Criminal Law § 155.5— failure to docket record in apt time

Appeal is dismissed for failure to docket the record on appeal within 90 days from the date of the judgment appealed from where the record on appeal contains no order extending the time for docketing. Court of Appeals Rule 5.

2. Criminal Law § 155.5— extension of time to serve case on appeal — no extension of time to docket

An order extending the time within which to serve the case on appeal does not have the effect of extending the time to docket the appeal.

Appeal by defendants from *Bailey, Judge.*Judgments entered 2 May 1974 in Superior Court, Franklin County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 January 1975.

Each defendant was charged in separate bills of indictment, proper in form, with the felony of armed robbery. On motion of the District Attorney and without objection by the defendants, the cases were consolidated for trial, and each defendant pled not guilty. The jury found each defendant guilty, and from judgments, entered, on the verdicts, each defendant gave notice of appeal.

*Attorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General Charles M. Hensey for the State.*

*Hubert H. Senter for defendant appellant Bennie Hopkins.*

*Charles M. Davis for defendant appellant Roosevelt Morrison Kellum.*

PARKER, Judge.

[1] The judgments appealed from are dated 2 May 1974. The record on appeal was docketed in this Court on 23 September 1974, which was more than 90 days after the date of the judgments. The record pn appeal contains no order extending the time for docketing. Rule 5, Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals, requires that a record on appeal, absent an order ex*688tending the time to docket, be docketed within 90 days after the date of the judgment or order appealed from.

[2] The record does show that orders were entered extending the time for serving the case on appeal. However, an order extending the time within which to serve the case on appeal does not have the effect of extending the time to docket the appeal. *State v. Peek,*22 N.C. App. 350, 206 S.E. 2d 386 (1974) ; *State v. Scott,*16 N.C. App. 424, 192 S.E. 2d 54 (1972), *cert. denied,*282 N.C. 429, 192 S.E. 2d 839 (1972) ; *State v. Farrell,*3 N.C. App. 196, 164 S.E. 2d 388 (1968). In accordance with the practice of this Court, defendants’ appeal is dismissed for failure to docket within the time allowed by the Rules. *State v. Hunt,*14 N.C. App. 626, 188 S.E. 2d 546 (1972).

Nevertheless, we have reviewed the record before us with respect to the assignments of error brought forward for review, and we find no prejudicial error.

Appeal dismissed.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Hedrick concur.
STATE EX REL. UTILITIES COMMISSION v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

271A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 18, 2019

Margaret A. Force, Assistant Attorney General, Matthew W. Sawchak, Solicitor General, Jennifer T. Harrod, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Teresa L. Townsend, Assistant Attorney General, James W. Doggett, Deputy Solicitor General, for Stein, Josh (Attorney General)

Kiran H. Mehta, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Christopher G. Browning, Jr., Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Molly Leigh McIntosh, Attorney at Law, for Duke Energy Progress, LLC

Matthew D. Quinn, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Sierra Club

David T. Drooz, Staff Attorney, Chapel Hill, Lucy E. Edmondson, Staff Attorney, Raleigh, for Public Staff-N.C. Utilities Commission

James P. West, Attorney at Law, for Fayetteville Public Works Commission

Kyle J. Smith, Attorney at Law, for Department of Defense/Federal Executive Agencies

***Amended***

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant Briefs filed on the 14th of March 2019 by Attorney General:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of March 2019."

Attorney General shall have up to and including the 26th day of April 2019 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
STATE v. Timothy Lee CREED

35P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 2018

Timothy Lee Creed, For Creed, Timothy Lee.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, For State of N.C.

Maureen Krueger, District Attorney, for the State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th of January 2018 by Defendant for Leave to File Petition for Writ of Errow, Coram Nobis in Moore County Superior Court:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5039 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5039

     To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and 
     Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
     participate in the design, planning, and construction of the 
    Groundwater Replenishment System Expansion to reclaim and reuse 
 municipal wastewater in the Orange County, California region, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 2010

Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California introduced the following bill; which 
           was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and 
     Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
     participate in the design, planning, and construction of the 
    Groundwater Replenishment System Expansion to reclaim and reuse 
 municipal wastewater in the Orange County, California region, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA REGION, WATER RECLAMATION PROJECT.

    (a) In General.--The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study 
and Facilities Act (title XVI of Public Law 102-575; 43 U.S.C. 390h et 
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. __. ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA REGION, WATER RECLAMATION, REUSE, 
              AND TREATMENT PROJECT.

    ``(a) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the costs of the project 
described in subsection (a) shall not exceed the lesser of the 
following:
            ``(1) 25 percent of the total costs.
            ``(2) $26,000,000 (indexed to January 2010 prices).
    ``(b) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not provide funds for the 
operations and maintenance of the project described in subsection 
(a).''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections in section 2 of the 
Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 is 
amended by inserting after the last item the following:

``SEC. __. ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA REGION, WATER RECLAMATION, REUSE, 
              AND TREATMENT PROJECT.''.

                                 <all>
```
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EARL DOUGLAS STOKES and WAYNE EARL WATKINS

No. 7518SC181

(Filed 2 July 1975)

Criminal-Law § 155.5 — failure to docket record in apt time

Appeal is dismissed for failure to docket the record on appeal within 90 days after the date of the judgment appealed from, the time for docketing not having been extended by the court’s order extending the time for serving, the case on appeal. Court of Appeals Rule 5.

Ap:E>EA:L by defendants from *Rousseau, Judge.*Judgments entered 17 October 1974, in Superior Court, Guilford County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 May 1975.

These cases were consolidated for trial. Both defendants were charged with armed robbery. Upon their pleas of not guilty, the jury returned verdicts of guilty as charged against both defendants. From judgments sentencing each of them to imprisonment for. a term of not less than 25 nor more than 30 *528years, with credit to both defendants for 58 days spent in jail awaiting trial, defendants appealed. •

*Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney DavidS. Crump, for the State.*

*Z. H. Howerton, Jr., for defendant appellants.*

MORRIS, Judge.

The judgments in this case were entered on 17 October 1974. The record on appeal was filed more than 90 days later, on 5 March 1975. The trial court granted motion 'of defendants’ court appointed counsel for an extension of time to.serve the case on appeal but no order was entered extending the time for docketing the record on appeal. “ [A] n order extending the time within which to serve the case on appeal does not have thé effect of extending the time to docket the appeal,” *State v. Hopkins,*24 N.C. App. 687, 688, 212 S.E. 2d 171, 172 (1975); and, in accordance with the practice of this Court, the defendants’ appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with the rules of this Court. Rule 5, Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Appeal dismissed.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Hedrick concur.
Exhibit 10.10(e)

FIFTH AMENDMENT  TO THE TRANSFER AND SERVICING AGREEMENT

This Fifth Amendment to the Transfer and Servicing Agreement ("Amendment") is executed as of this 20th day of
August, 2002, by and among COMPUCREDIT FUNDING CORP., a Nevada corporation, as Transferor, COMPUCREDIT CORPORATION, a Georgia corporation, as Servicer, COMPUCREDIT CREDIT CARD MASTER NOTE BUSINESS
TRUST, a Nevada business trust, as Issuer, and THE BANK OF NEW YORK, a New York banking corporation, as Indenture Trustee.

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, the Transferor, the Issuer, the Servicer and the Indenture Trustee executed the Transfer and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 14, 2000 (as
amended, the "Agreement"); and

WHEREAS,
the parties hereto have agreed to amend the Agreement on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth in accordance with Section 10.01(a)(ii) of the Agreement:

NOW,
THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:

SECTION
1.Amendment of the Agreement.    The Agreement is hereby amended by deleting Schedule II to the
Agreement and substituting the Schedule II attached hereto asExhibit Ain its place.

SECTION
2.Miscellaneous



---



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Transferor, the Servicer, the Issuer and the Indenture Trustee have caused this Amendment to be duly executed by their respective officers as of the day and year
first above written.

| |  | COMPUCREDIT FUNDING CORP.,
as Transferor,                                            
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | By:                                                                                  
| |  |                                                                                      
| |  | COMPUCREDIT CORPORATION,
as Servicer,                                                
| |  | By:                                                                                  
| |  |                                                                                      
| |  | COMPUCREDIT CREDIT CARD MASTER NOTE
BUSINESS TRUST,
as Issuer                        
| |  | By:                                                                                  
| |  | By:                                                                                  
| |  |                                                                                      
| |  | THE BANK OF NEW YORK,
not in its individual capacity but solely as Indenture Trustee,
| |  | By:                                                                                  
| |  |                                                                                      

---

QuickLinks
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.3

                          INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

                               Registered Office
           ELECTRONICS CITY, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE - 561 229, INDIA.
                                   PROXY FORM

Regd. Folio No.  [_][_][_][_][_][_][_][_][_]

    I/We _________________________________________ of __________________________
    ______________________ in the district of __________________________________
    ___________________________________________  being a member /members of the
    company hereby appoint ________________________________________________ of
    ______________________________________ in the district of __________________
    _________________________ or failing him/her _______________________________
    ________________ of ______________________________________________ in the
    district __________________________________________ as my/our proxy to
    vote for me/us on my/our behalf at the TWENTIETH ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING of
    the company to be held at the J. N. Tata Auditorium, National Science
    Seminar Complex, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore -560 012 at 3.00
    p.m. on Saturday, June 02, 2001 and at any adjournment(s) thereof.

    Signed this _____________________________________ day of ___________________
    ________________________ 2001.


    Signature _________________________    Rupee one
                                           Revenue
                                           Stamp


    Notes: This form, in order to be effective, should be duly stamped,
    completed and signed and must be deposited at the Registered Office of the
    company, not less than 48 hours before the meeting.

                                Please tear here
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
                               Registered Office
           ELECTRONICS CITY, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE - 561 229, INDIA.
                                ATTENDANCE SLIP
                Twentieth Annual General Meeting - June 02, 2001
<TABLE>
    <S>                                                  <C>
    Regd. Folio No. [_][_][_][_][_][_][_][_][_]          No. of shares held [_][_][_][_][_][_]

</TABLE>

    I certify that I am a member/proxy for the member of the company.

    I hereby record my presence at the TWENTIETH ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING of the
    Company at the J. N. Tata Auditorium, National Science Seminar Complex,
    Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore - 560 012 at 3.00 p.m. on Saturday,
    June 02, 2001.


    _______________________________                ____________________________
    Member's/proxy's name in
    BLOCK letters                                  Signature of member/proxy



    Note: Please fill up this attendance slip and hand it over at the entrance
          of the meeting hall. Members are requested to bring their copies of
          the Annual Report to the meeting.
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)
 In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2020 (the “Report”) of Prospect Capital Corporation (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Commission on the date hereof, I, Kristin L. Van Dask , Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:
 1.The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. Date:November 9, 2020/s/ KRISTIN L. VAN DASKKristin L. Van DaskChief Financial Officer
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Prospect Capital Corporation and will be retained by Prospect Capital Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 Certification Pursuant to Section 302
Of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  I, David C. Choi, certify that:1.
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of MetroCorp Bancshares, 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;3.
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a)
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):  a)
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting. Date: March 21, 2005 /s/ David C. ChoiDavid C. ChoiExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer