alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
General Electric Capital Corporation 

10 Riverview Drive 

Danbury, Connecticut 06810

 

February 27, 2003 

 

AMENDMENT 

 

SAVVIS Communications Corporation

12851 Worldgate Drive 

Herndon, Virginia 20170 

Attention: Lane Blumenfeld 

 

 

Gentlemen: 

 

Reference is hereby made to the AMENDED AND RESTATED MASTER LEASE AGREEMENT No. 6857500 dated as of March 8, 2002 (as amended, the“Lease Agreement”) by and among SAVVIS COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, a Missouri corporation (“Lessee”), the other Savvis Parties signatory hereto, GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (in itsindividual capacity, “GE Capital”) for itself, as Lessor, and as Agent for Lessors, and the other Lessors signatory hereto from time to time. Capitalized terms used herein without definition shall have the respective meaningsascribed thereto in the Credit Agreement. 

 

AnnexB of the Lease Agreement is hereby amended to change the words “Within sixty (60) days after the Closing Date” to read “On or before April 30, 2003”. This amendment shall be deemed effective as of May 14, 2002. 

 

Except as expressly amended in the preceding paragraph, theLease Agreement remains in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. 

 

This amendment shall be signed in any number of counterparts with the same effect as if the signatures hereto and thereto were upon the same instrument. Delivery of an executed counterpart of asignature page to this amendment by telecopy shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed original counterpart of this amendment. 

 

This amendment shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York. 

 

Kindlyacknowledge your agreement with the terms of this amendment by executing and delivering to the undersigned your counterpart hereof. 

 

Very truly yours,

 

GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORPORATION,

as Agent and Lessor

By:
 
/s/    ROBERTWOTTEN        

Name
 
**Robert Wotten**

Title
 
**SVP**

 

 

 

ACCEPTED AND AGREED: 

 

SAVVIS COMMUNICATIONSCORPORATION, 

a Missouri corporation 

 

By:
 
/s/    DAVID J.FREAR        

Name
 
**David J. Frear**

Title
 
**EYP and CFO**
#### Ann Zientek, Appellant, v State of New York et al., Respondents.

Submitted February 13, 1996;

decided April 4, 1996

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. Motion for leave to appeal denied, with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 15 (Monday, January 25, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3953-3954]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1351]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6886]


Waiver of Restriction on Assistance to the Central Government of 
Egypt

    Pursuant to section 7086(c)(2) of the Department of State, Foreign

[[Page 3954]]

Operations, and Related Programs Appropriation Act, 2010 (Division F, 
Pub. L. 111-117) (``the Act''), and Department of State Delegation of 
Authority Number 245-1, I hereby determine that it is important to the 
national interest of the United States to waive the requirements of 
section 7086(c)(1) of the Act with respect to the Government of Egypt, 
and I hereby waive such restriction.
    This determination shall be reported to Congress, and published in 
the Federal Register.

    Dated: January 11, 2010.
Jacob J. Lew,
Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.
[FR Doc. 2010-1351 Filed 1-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-31-P
#### Lemon Thomson, Respondent, v. John O. Poor and others, Appellants

—Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Mayham, P. J.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-10072

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MIGUEL ANGEL BETANZO-ORDUNA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:11-CR-310-1

Before DAVIS, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Miguel Angel 

Betanzo-Orduna has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Betanzo-Orduna has not filed a 

response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 17, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-10072 Document: 00512473495 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2013
No. 13-10072

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 13-10072 Document: 00512473495 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2013
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| 1. | The                Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company                for the periods presented therein. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                September 15, 2008 | By:   | /s/                Robert E. Frick.                                        |
|-----------------------------------------|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                    |            | Name:                Robert E. Frick                                       |
|                                    |            | Title:                Chief Executive Officer and                President |

----
#### Jane M. Murdock, Appellant, v Stewart’s Ice Cream Co., Inc., Respondent.

[773 NYS2d 666]

*1101Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Jefferson County (Hugh A. Gilbert, J.), entered March 28, 2003. The judgment was entered, upon a jury verdict, in favor of defendant in a personal injury action.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted, the verdict is set aside and a new trial is granted.

Memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of defendant. Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she sustained when she allegedly slipped and fell on a wet spot as she entered defendant’s store. The jury found that, although defendant was negligent, that negligence was not a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs injuries.

We agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court erred in denying her motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence. The jury’s finding that defendant’s negligence was not a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injuries is not supported by any fair interpretation of the evidence *(see Bendersky v M & O Enters. Corp.,*299 AD2d 434 [2002]; *Brecht v Copper Sands,*237 AD2d 907 [1997]). Contrary to the court’s determination, the findings of the jury cannot be reconciled on the basis of defendant’s evidence that the floor was dry at the time of the accident. The instructions given to the jury establish “the legal standard by which the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict must be judged” *(Harris v Armstrong,*64 NY2d 700, 702 [1984]; *see Rosas v Ishack,*219 AD2d 633, 634 [1995]; *Rubin v Pecoraro,*141 AD2d 525, 526 [1988]). Based on the instructions that were given here, the jury could not have found that defendant was negligent without first finding that the floor was wet and that the wet floor constituted a dangerous condition. We thus reverse the judgment, grant plaintiffs motion, set aside the verdict and grant a new trial (see *Dellamonica v Carvel Corp.,*1 AD3d 311 [2003]; *Stanton v Gasport View Dairy Farm,*244 AD2d 893 [1997]). The contention of plaintiff that the court erred in failing to grant a directed verdict in her favor on the issue of proximate cause is not preserved for our review. Present—Pine, J.P., Wisner, Kehoe, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.
#### Mary B. Phillips, as Executrix, Respondent, v. Edwin W. Phillips, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion ofWilliams, J.; Mem. by

Boardman, J.
Exhibit 34.4

 

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

The Board of Directors 

HSBC Electronic Data Processing (India) Private Limited:

 

We have examined management’s assessment, included in the accompanying “Report on Compliance With Applicable Servicing Criteria Pursuant To Item 1122 of Regulation AB Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934” (Exhibit 33.4) that HSBC Electronic Data Processing (India) Private Limited (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)(4)(viii) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB (the Applicable Servicing Criteria)applicable to the servicing of asset backed securitization transactions backed by auto loan receivables, as of and for the period from January 31, 2007 (date of issuance of the initial asset-backed securitization transaction covered by this report) through December 31, 2007.  Exhibit 33.4 identifies the individual asset-backed securitization transactions (the Covered Transactions) defined by management as part of theirassessment. Management has determined that all other criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) are not applicable to the Company’s activities with respect to the Covered Transactions.  Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assessment about the Company’s compliance based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States)****and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Our examination included testing of less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Covered Transactions, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Covered Transactions, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.  Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by theCompany during the period covered by this report.  Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assessment that the Company complied with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the period from January 31, 2007 through December 31, 2007 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

/s/ KPMG LLP

 

Chicago, Illinois

March 3, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 62925]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29998]








U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

DATE AND TIME: Friday, December 15, 1995, 9:30 a.m.

PLACE: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street NW., Room 540, 
Washington, DC 20425.

STATUS:

Agenda

I. Approval of Agenda
II. Approval of Minutes of October 6, 1995 Meeting
III. Announcements
IV. Staff Director's Report
V. State Advisory Committee Reports
    <bullet> ``Race Relations and Equal Education Opportunities at 
        Proviso West High School'' (Illinois)
    <bullet> ``Civil Rights Issues in Maine: A Briefing Summary of 
        Hate Crimes, Racial Tensions, and Migrant/Immigrant 
        Workers'' (Maine)
    <bullet> ``Discipline in Michigan Public Schools and Government 
        Enforcement of Equal Education Opportunity'' (Michigan)
    <bullet> ``Equality Issues in South Dakota Women's Employment'' 
        (South Dakota)
    <bullet> ``Racial and Ethnic Tensions in Florida'' (Florida)
VI. State Advisory Committee Appointments for Montana, Oregon, and 
        Utah
VII. Discussion of Commission Subpoena Power
VIII. Future Agenda Items

CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Barbara Brooks, Press and 
Communications, (202) 376-8312.

    Dated: December 5, 1995.
Miguel A. Sapp,

Parliamentarian.

[FR Doc. 95-29998 Filed 12-5-95; 3:23 pm]

BILLING CODE 6335-01-M
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5632 

To reform and update the flat rent structure for public housing. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 

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

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To reform and update the flat rent structure for public 

housing. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fair Local Adjustment 

5 for Tenant Rents Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PUBLIC HOUSING FLAT RENTS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Clause (i) of section 3(a)(2)(B) 

8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 

9 1437a(a)(2)(B)(i)) is amended to read as follows: 

10 ‘‘(i) FLAT RENTS.— 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5632 IH

1 ‘‘(I) IN GENERAL.—Each public 

2 housing agency shall establish, for 

3 each dwelling unit in public housing 

4 owned or operated by the agency, a 

5 flat rental amount for the dwelling 

6 unit, which shall— 

7 ‘‘(aa) be based on the rental 

8 value of the unit, as determined 

9 by the public housing agency, but 

10 may not be an amount that is 

11 less than 80 percent of the appli12 cable fair market rental estab13 lished under section 8(c) of this 

14 Act; or 

15 ‘‘(bb) be established using 

16 another factor as determined by 

17 the Secretary. 

18 ‘‘(II) EXCEPTIONS.—A public 

19 housing agency may request that the 

20 Secretary may establish a flat rent for 

21 a dwelling in an amount that is less 

22 than the minimum amount established 

23 pursuant to subclause (I) for the unit, 

24 if the public housing agency dem25 onstrates that such minimum amount 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5632 IH

1 is not an accurate measure of the 

2 rental value for the unit. 

3 ‘‘(III) RENT INCREASES.—If a 

4 new flat rental amount established 

5 pursuant to this clause for a dwelling 

6 unit would increase the existing rental 

7 payment of any family residing in 

8 public housing as of implementation 

9 of such flat rent by more than 35 per10 cent, the new flat rental amount shall 

11 be phased in as necessary to ensure 

12 that the family’s existing rental pay13 ment does not increase by more than 

14 35 percent annually.’’. 

15 (b) IMPLEMENTATION.—The Secretary of Housing 

16 and Urban Development shall implement section 

17 3(a)(2)(B)(i) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, 

18 as amended by subsection (a) of this section, not later 

19 than the expiration of the 6-month period beginning on 

20 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

21 SEC. 3. MINIMUM RENTS FOR PUBLIC HOUSING AND SEC22 TION 8 RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. 

23 Subparagraph (A) of section 3(a)(3) of the United 

24 States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(a)(3)(A)) 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 5632 IH

1 is amended, in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking 

2 ‘‘more than’’ and inserting ‘‘less than’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64074-64075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30390]



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

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
[Finance Docket No. 32817]


Pine Belt Southern Railroad Company, Inc.--Trackage Rights 
Exemption--The Western Railway of Alabama

    The Western Railway of Alabama (WRA) has agreed to grant overhead 
trackage rights to Pine Belt Southern Railroad Company, Inc. 
(PBRR),<SUP>1 on WRA's line of railroad as follows: (1) that portion of 
WRA's Lafayette Line beginning at its point of switch at valuation 
Station (V.S.) 1005+80, WRA milepost XXB-107.37, and extending north 
369 feet (0.07 miles) to the ownership point between WRA and PBRR 
opposite V.S. 1002+11.0, milepost XXB-107.29; and (2) that portion of 
WRA's main track beginning at the point of switch of the Lafayette Line 
at V.S. 1005+80, WRA milepost XXB-

[[Page 64075]]
107.37, and extending 11,453 feet (2.17 miles) south to the point of 
switch of Central of Georgia Railroad Company Track No. 24 at V.S. 
1120+32.5, WRA milepost XXB-109.55. The total length of trackage rights 
is 2.24 miles. The trackage rights were to become effective December 1, 
1995.

    \1\  The overhead trackage rights between Opelika and Roanoke 
Junction, AL, will allow PBRR to route traffic between Opelika to 
Lafayette, AL (Lafayette Line), via a combination of lines purchased 
from Central of Georgia Railroad Company a wholly owned subsidiary 
of Norfolk Southern Railway Company, and trackage rights acquired 
from WRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). If the notice 
contains false or misleading information the exemption is void ab 
initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10505(d) may 
be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not stay 
the transaction. Pleadings must be filed with the Office of the 
Secretary, Case Control Branch, Interstate Commerce Commission, 
Washington, DC 20423,<SUP>2 and served on: Andrew C. Rambo, 104 Depot 
St., P. O. Box 129, Shelbyville, TN 37160.

    \2\  Legislation to terminate the Commission on December 31, 
1995, is now pending enactment. Until further notice, the parties 
submitting pleadings should continue to use the current name and 
address.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a condition to use of this exemption, any employees adversely 
affected by the trackage rights will be protected pursuant to Norfolk 
and Western Ry. Co.--Trackage Rights--BN, 354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as 
modified in Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.--Lease and Operate, 360 I.C.C. 
653 (1980).

    Decided: December 6, 1995.

    By the Commission, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-30390 Filed 12-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7575-7576]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3030]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[W0220-1020-00-241A]


Information Collection Submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget for Review Under Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposal for the collection of information listed below has 
been [[Page 7576]] submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for 
approval under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35). Copies of the proposed collection of information and 
related forms may be obtained by contacting the Bureau's clearance 
officer at the phone number listed below. Comments and suggestions on 
the proposal should be made directly to the Bureau's Clearance Officer 
and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project 
(1004-0051), Washington, D.C. 20503, telephone (202) 395-7340.

Title: Actual Grazing Use Report.
OMB Approval Number: 1004-0051.
Abstract: This form is used by permittees to provide information on the 
actual amount of livestock grazing use made on the public lands within 
a specified time to the Bureau of Land Management for billing purposes 
and program monitoring.
Bureau Form Number: 4130-5.
Frequency: Annually.
Description of Respondents: Grazing permittees required to report 
actual livestock use on the public lands.
Estimated completion time: 24 minutes.
Annual Responses: 15,000.
Annual Burden Hours: 6,000.
BLM Clearance Officer (Alternate): Mae C. Bowman (202) 452-5011.

    Dated: October 25, 1994.
Ray A. Brady,
Acting Assistant Director, Land and Renewable Resources.
[FR Doc. 95-3030 Filed 2-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-M
EXHIBIT 4

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-5 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 1

of 2
























































8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW

1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

81,7('67$7(6',675,&7&2857

1257+(51',675,&72)&$/,)251,$

6$1)5$1&,6&2+(55,1*

$662&,$7,21HWDO

3ODLQWLIIV

Y

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&

&203$1<HWDO

'HIHQGDQWV

&DVH1RFY:+2-&6

127,&($1'25'(56(77,1*

)857+(56(77/(0(17

&21)(5(1&(

72$//3$57,(6$1'&2816(/2)5(&25'

 <RXDUHKHUHE\QRWLILHGWKDWD)XUWKHU6HWWOHPHQW&RQIHUHQFHLVVFKHGXOHGIRU0D\

DWDPLQ&RXUWURRP*WK)ORRU*ROGHQ*DWH$YHQXH6DQ)UDQFLVFR

&DOLIRUQLD8SGDWHGFRQILGHQWLDOVHWWOHPHQWFRQIHUHQFHVWDWHPHQWVVKDOOEHORGJHGZLWKWKH

&RXUWE\0D\(DFKSDUW\VKDOODOVRVXEPLWWKHLUXSGDWHGVWDWHPHQWVLQSGIIRUPDWDQG

HPDLOWKHLUVWDWHPHQWWR-&632#FDQGXVFRXUWVJRYDORQJZLWKDSGIRIDQ\SUHYLRXVVHWWOHPHQW

FRQIHUHQFHVWDWHPHQWV

 /HDGWULDOFRXQVHOVKDOODSSHDUDWWKH6HWWOHPHQW&RQIHUHQFHZLWKWKHSDUWLHVDQGSHUVRQV

KDYLQJXQOLPLWHGDXWKRULW\WRQHJRWLDWHDQGVHWWOHWKHFDVH

 7KHSDUWLHVVKDOOQRWLI\WKHXQGHUVLJQHG
V&KDPEHUVLPPHGLDWHO\DWLIWKLV

FDVHVHWWOHVSULRUWRWKHGDWHVHWIRUWKH)XUWKHU6HWWOHPHQW&RQIHUHQFH$OORWKHUSURYLVLRQVRIWKLV

&RXUW
VRULJLQDO1RWLFHDQG6HWWOHPHQW&RQIHUHQFH2UGHUUHPDLQLQHIIHFW

,7,66225'(5('

'DWHG)HEUXDU\

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

-26(3+&63(52

8QLWHG6WDWHV0DJLVWUDWH-XGJH

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

-26(3+ &63(52

8QLWHG 6WDWHV 0DJLVWUDWH -XGJH

Case3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document45 Filed02/27/15 Page1 of 1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-5 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 2

of 2