alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.12



Portions of this exhibit have been omitted and filed separately pursuant
to an application for confidential treatment filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



Omissions are designated as [***].



FIFTH AMENDMENT TO COST SHARING AND IRU AGREEMENT



THIS FIFTH AMENDMENT TO COST SHARING AND IRU AGREEMENT (Fifth Amendment) is made and entered into as of the 15thday of February, 2001, by and between LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (Grantor) and CABLE & WIRELESS USA,
INC., a District of Columbia corporation (Grantee). This Amendment modifies the First Amendment to Cost Sharing and IRU Agreement dated August 11, 2000 between Grantor and Grantee (First Amendment). Capitalized terms used but
not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the First Amendment.



RECITALS



Grantor and
Grantee entered into that certain Cost Sharing and IRU Agreement dated May 25, 1999, as amended by First Amendment to Cost Sharing and IRU Agreement dated August 11, 2000, Second Amendment to Cost Sharing and IRU Agreement dated August 11, 2000, and
Third Amendment to Cost Sharing and IRU Agreement dated November 22, 2000 (collectively, the Agreement).



Accordingly, in consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,
Grantor and Grantee hereby agree as follows:



In Article 1 of
the First Amendment the Segment description for [***] shall be deleted and replaced with the Segment description for [***] as follows:



|      |  |              |  |       |  |       |  |       |  |                       
|----- |  | ------------ |  | ----- |  | ----- |  | ----- |  | ----------------------
|City  |  | Network/Ring |  | [***] |  | [***] |  | [***] |  | Completion Date       
|      |  |              |  |       | 
|[***] |  | [***]        |  | [***] |  | [***] |  | [***] |  | 90 days from Execution
|      |  |              |  |       | 
|      |  | [***]        |  | [***] |  | [***] |  | [***] |  | 90 days from Execution



EXCEPT, to the extent
herein revised, amended or modified, all terms, conditions and provisions of the First Amendment are hereby affirmed and ratified in all respects.



IN WITNESS HEREOF, Grantor and Grantee have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.



LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability companyBy:Title:

Vice President, Fiber ServicesDate:

February 15, 2001CABLE & WIRELESS USA, INC., a District of Columbia corporationBy:

/s/ Robert DuncanTitle:

Director, Access Capacity ManagementDate:

February 15, 2001
### NUMBER 13
- 2 2
- 00 253
- CV


## COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

IN THE INTEREST OF J.R., C.M.R.C., AND D.C. , MINOR C HILDREN

On appeal from the 430 th District Court of Hildalgo County, Texas.



## ORDER

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justice s Longoria and Tijerina Order Per Curiam
This is an appeal of a final order terminating parental rights. On July 22, 2022,

a ppellant filed a first motion of extension o f time to file a brief. Appellant’s brief was due

on July 18 , 2022. Appellant has requested a twenty

- one - day extension to file a brief from
the date of this motion

. Appeals in parental termination and child protection cases are governed by the rules of appellate procedure for accelerated appeals but include additional expedited2

deadlines and procedures. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 28.4; T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN . 6.2(a). The

interme diate appellate courts are directed to ensure “as far as reasonably possible” that these appeals are brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN . 6.2(a). Given the nature of these cases and the shortened appellate deadlines, we limit the request to one ten

- day extension of time absent truly extraordinary circumstances. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(d). This Court, having fully examined and considered a ppellant’s motion is of the opinion that, in the interest of justice, a ppellant’s first motion for extension of time to file
his brief should be granted in part with order. The Court, however, requires strict adherence to the briefing rules in appeals of parental termination cases, such as this appeal, and looks with disfavor upon the delay caused by such extension requests. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.6; see also id

. at R. 28.4.
The Court GRANTS in part a ppellant’s first motion for extension of time. This
motion is GRANTED insofar as the Court will extend a ppellant’s deadline to file appellant’s brief to August 1 , 2022

. The Court DENIES appell ant’s request for a twenty

one - day extension. Further motions for extension of time will not be favorably entertained by this Court, absent extraordinary circumstances

.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed on the 25 th day of Ju ly , 202 2

.
First Amendment to ISDA Master Agreement among GMAC Bank and GMAC Mortgage, LLC



 Exhibit 10.1 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
 ISDA MASTER AGREEMENT 
 This First Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the ISDA Master Agreement dated as of June 12, 2007 (the “Master Agreement”) is made
as of the 6th day of April 2009 (the “Effective Date,” by and between GMAC BANK, a Utah state bank, with its principal office at 6985 Union Park Center, Suite 435, Midvale, Utah 84047 (“Party B”), and GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company with offices at 1100 Virginia Drive, Fort Washington, Pennsylvania 19044 (“Party A”). 
 Explanatory Statement 
  

	A.	Party A and Party B are parties to the Master Agreement, as supplemented by certain Schedules. 

  

	B.	Party A and Party B wish to amend the Schedule dated as of July 1, 2008 to the Master Agreement. 

  

	C.	Party A and Party B intend that this Amendment comply with requirements of Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act (12 USC §221 et. seq.) and with implementing
federal regulations. 

  

	D.	All capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement. 

 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises expressed herein, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree
as follows. 
 1. Amendments to the Schedule. Party A and Party B hereby agree that the Schedule dated as of July 1, 2008 (the
“Schedule”) shall be amended, effective as of the Effective Date, as follows: 
 Subsection 6(a)(xvi) of the Schedule shall be
amended to read in its entirety as follows: 
 “Subject Transaction” means a legally binding commitment by Party B to
purchase for its “Held for Sale” (HFS) portfolio, any loan from certain loan products and programs, as mutually agreed to by Party A and Party B, for which “Pipeline Risk” is managed by the ResCap Capital Markets Group.

 2. Agreement Remains in Effect. Except as otherwise specifically set forth in Section 1 above, the Agreement and the Schedule
shall remain in full force and effect without modification or amendment. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment in two counterparts by their duly authorized
representatives the day first above written. 
  

									
	WITNESS/ATTEST:	 		 	Purchaser:
			
		 		 	GMAC Mortgage, LLC
				
		 		 	By: 	 	/s/ James N. Young
		 		 		 		 	 James N. Young
 CFO

			
	WITNESS/ATTEST:	 		 	Seller:
			
		 		 	GMAC Bank, a Utah state bank
				
	/s/ Linda Heigh	 		 	By:	 	/s/ Al Celini
		 		 		 		 	 Al Celini
 Senior Vice President


  

 - 2 -
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS 

ANGELES

EXHIBIT C 

EXPENSE SUMMARY 

FOR THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 1, 2019 THROUGH NOVEMBER 30, 2019 

EXPENSES AMOUNT

Airfare $42,689.05 

Automated Research $8,051.08 

Business Meals $5,672.81 

Car Rental $2,637.82 

Color Copies $3.00 

Copier/Duplication $84.30 

Delivery Services $539.05 

Depositions $1,398.00 

Filing Fees $2,059.95 

Ground Transportation (Local) $1,092.60 

Ground Transportation (Out of Town) $8,622.87 

Local Mileage $213.21 

Lodging $62,983.01 

Meals While Traveling $3,013.31 

Messenger Service $1,098.95 

Mileage Reimbursement $402.46 

Miscellaneous (Meeting Room Rental/Set-up, etc.) $4,454.89 

On-line Research $63.86 

Other Professional Services (includes Experts) $344,919.64 

Outside Duplicating & Binding $10,456.94 

Overtime Business Meals $113.99 

Overtime Ground Transportation $36.16 

Postage $206.90 

Printing $4,051.51 

Teleconference Charges (Court Call) $520.00 

Transcripts $40,284.30 

Videographic Services $8,442.50 

TOTAL $554,112.16

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5247-3 Filed: 01/02/20 Entered: 01/02/20 13:05:43 Page 1

of 1
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 10123 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. RODOLFO PEREZ

- JIMENEZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:18

- CR

- 354

- 1

Befor e CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM: * Rodolfo Perez

- Jimenez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea for illegal reentry. He argues that the 24

- month, above

- guidelines sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to discuss or account for mitigating factors , including potential grounds for a downward departure from the advisory guidelines range

. We affirm.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set f orth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 24, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-10123 Document: 00515173026 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2019No. 19

- 10123

2 Because Perez

- Jimenez did not object to the district court’s explanation of his sentence, we review his procedural clai m for plain error only. See, e.g., United States v. Lopez

- Velasquez , 526 F.3d 804, 806 (5th Cir. 2008). The district court confirmed that it had considered the guidelines range and statutory sentencing factors , and it explained that it was imposing an ab ove guidelines sentence based up on Perez

- Jimenez’s criminal history , which includ ed a conviction for indecency with a child that th e court found particularly serious. Although the district court did not directly address arguments whereby Perez

- Jimenez sou ght to minimize t his history and urged that time recently served in state custody weighed against further imprisonment , the record indicates the court heard these arguments and chose to give them little weight

. T he district court’s explanation for the sentence allows for effective review, and was not error, plain or otherwise. We therefore conclude that Perez

- Jimenez has failed to show procedural error. See United States v. Fraga , 704 F.3d 432, 439 (5th Cir. 2013). Perez

- Jimenez has also failed to show substantive error , plain or otherwise. The record reflects that the district court made an informed, individualized assessment in sentencing Perez

- Jimenez , and t he eight

- month upward variance imposed is well within the ran ge of variances that we have upheld in the past. See , e.g., Lopez

- Velasquez , 526 F.3d at 805; United States v. Herrera

- Garduno , 519 F.3d 526, 531

- 32 (5th Cir. 2008). The possibility of reasonable disagreement with how the district court balanced sentenci ng factors does not establish that the sentence is un reasonable. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Case: 19-10123 Document: 00515173026 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2019
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Space Command

USSPACECOM

                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  About    -  Mission         
  -  Warfighting Units         
  -  Frequently Asked Questions         
  -  Strategic Vision         
  -  Emblem 
-  Leaders    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Command Senior Enlisted Leader         
  -  Chief of Staff 
-  Support    -  Inspector General         
  -  FOIA      -  Making a FOIA Request         
    -  Reading Room 
  -  Equal Opportunity Coordinator         
  -  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Victim Advocate         
  -  Command Chaplain         
  -  Commandant         
  -  Resilience Program 
-  Newsroom    -  News      -  FY2025 Testimony 
  -  Photos and Videos         
  -  Speeches         
  -  Publications 
-  Contact		 
-  Partnerships and Outreach    -  Academic Engagement Enterprise      -  AEE Articles of Interest         
    -  AEE Members 
  -  Careers      -  Civilians         
    -  Internships 
  -  Industry Engagement Portal 
-  Newcomers    -  Newcomer Information         
  -  Checking In 

# PHOTOS ANDVIDEOS

Search

Search

                                - All Images 
                                - Other 
                                - Space Shuttle 

                                - Upload Date
                                - Photo Date
                                - Title

----

Download Image: Full Size (0.45 MB)

Tags:West Point, USSPACECOM

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DERREK DAVONTE WILLIAMS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-1296

[February 29, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. 

Lucie County; Lawrence M. Mirman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

562022CF000621A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Patrick B. Burke, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pablo I. Tapia, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
## Cohort Life Tables

- Office of the Chief Actuary
- Actuarial Publications

 Annual Trustees Reports provide estimates describing the actuarial status of Social Security's Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds under current law. In making these estimates, the Trustees make key demographic assumptions and economic assumptions. The intermediate set of assumptions reflects the Trustees’ best estimates of future experience. 

Actuarial Study Number 120here

Files are available from the following Trustees Reports

Footer menu
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-3110

LINDA A. WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

Respondent.

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in

PH0752080427-1-1.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Department of the Army's unopposed motion to

suspend the briefing schedule pending the court's disposition of the Merit Systems

Protection Board's motion to reform the caption,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.

FOR THE COURT

Date

cc:	Linda A. Williams

Elizabeth A. Speck, Esq.

Calvin Morrow, Esq.

s19

Jan Horbaly

Clerk U.S. COURT

FI

O APAPPEALS FOR PEALS

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

APR 2 8 2009

APR 2, 8 ?PO,

/s/ Jan Horbaly
SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT--1240 SIMON CIRCLE



 Exhibit 10.4 
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT 
 This Second Amendment (“Amendment”) is effective
May 1, 2009, supplements and amends the Standard Industrial/Commercial Multi-Tenant Lease Net Agreement dated June 1, 2005 (“the Lease”), between EMC Associates, L.P., (“Lessor”), and Dynamic Details,
Inc., a California corporation, (“Lessee”), with respect to the following: 
 RECITALS 
 A. The Lessor and Lessee entered the Lease for the property located at 1240 Simon Circle, Unit E, Anaheim, California. The Lease was extended pursuant to
the First Amendment to Lease dated March 20, 2008. 
 B. The Lease, as amended, expires September 30, 2009 and Lessor and Lessee
mutually desire to extend the term of the Lease. 
 AGREEMENT 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions herein, Lessor and Lessee agree as follows: 
 1. Term. Subject to the terms and provisions of this Amendment, the term of the Master Lease shall be extended for the period October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2012 (“Extension Term”).

 2. Base Rent. Base Rent of as set forth herein shall be paid monthly as follows: 
  

						
	 October 1, 2009-September 30, 2010
	  	$	1,188.00 per month	  	
	 October 1, 2010-September 30, 2011
	  	$	1,223.64 per month	  	
	 October 1, 2011-September 30, 2012
	  	$	1,260.34 per month	  	

 3. Cooperation; Continuing Obligations. Lessor and Lessee agree to perform any further acts
and execute and deliver documents reasonably necessary to carry out the provisions of this Amendment. Except as modified by this Amendment, all covenants, conditions and agreements between Lessor and Lessee under the Lease shall continue in full
force and effect. 
 4. Authority. Lessee has not heretofore assigned or otherwise transferred any right or interest in the Lease, the
individuals signing this Amendment on behalf of Lessee have been duly authorized and the Amendment adopted by appropriate resolutions which are in full force and effect, and Lessee has full and complete authority to execute the within Amendment
without any additional approval or consent. 
 5. Recitals Incorporation. The foregoing Recitals contained in this Amendment are
incorporated into the parties agreements. 
 6. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which
shall be an original and all of which shall be read together as one instrument. 
  

 Page 1 of 2 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Lessor and Lessee have executed this Amendment as of the date hereinabove written.

  

									
		 	 “Lessor”
 EMC Associates
	 		 		 	 “Lessee”
 Dynamic Details, Inc., a
California Corporation

					
		 	/s/ Matt Clabaugh	 		 		 	/s/ Mikel Williams
		 	Matt Clabaugh	 		 		 	Mikel Williams
	Its:	 		 		 	Its:	 	President
					
		 	 	 		 		 	/s/ Kurt Scheuerman
		 		 		 		 	Kurt Scheuerman
	Its:	 		 		 	Its:	 	Vice President

  

 Page 2 of 2
#### LILLIAN LOUISE BROOKS v. VIRGIL LEE MILLSAP, BEATRICE MORGAN and JOHN DANIEL MORGAN.

(Filed 25 May, 1955.)

Appeal by defendants from *Phillips, J.,*October Term, 1954, of GuilfoRD (Greensboro Division).

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff resulting from the alleged negligence of the defendants.

On 5 September, 1951, about 10:15 p.m., Harold F. Brooks was operating his Chevrolet automobile in an easterly direction over Pinecroft Road, approaching the intersection of said road with U. S. Highway 29. His wife, plaintiff in this action, was riding with him. At the same time, Virgil Lee Millsap was operating the Mercury automobile of defendant Beatrice Morgan in a northerly direction on U. S. Highway 29, approaching the aforesaid intersection. The defendant John Daniel Morgan and Millsap were business partners. John Daniel Morgan had driven the Mercury automobile over to Guilford County and Millsap was driving it back. The car of Harold F. Brooks and the automobile of Beatrice Morgan collided at the intersection, seriously injuring the plaintiff.

The jury answered the issues of negligence and damages in favor of the plaintiff. From the judgment entered on the verdict the defendants appeal and assign error.

*Jordan & Wright for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Price & Osborne and J. C. Johnson, Jr., for defendants, appellants.*

PeR Cueiam.

We have carefully examined the exceptions and assignments of error brought forward by the defendants on this appeal, and find them without sufficient merit to disturb the result of the trial below.

No error.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Space Command

USSPACECOM

                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  About    -  Mission         
  -  Warfighting Units         
  -  Frequently Asked Questions         
  -  Strategic Vision         
  -  Emblem 
-  Leaders    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Command Senior Enlisted Leader         
  -  Chief of Staff 
-  Support    -  Inspector General         
  -  FOIA      -  Making a FOIA Request         
    -  Reading Room 
  -  Equal Opportunity Coordinator         
  -  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Victim Advocate         
  -  Command Chaplain         
  -  Commandant         
  -  Resilience Program 
-  Newsroom    -  News      -  FY2025 Testimony 
  -  Photos and Videos         
  -  Speeches         
  -  Publications 
-  Contact		 
-  Partnerships and Outreach    -  Academic Engagement Enterprise      -  AEE Articles of Interest         
    -  AEE Members 
  -  Careers      -  Civilians         
    -  Internships 
  -  Industry Engagement Portal 
-  Newcomers    -  Newcomer Information         
  -  Checking In 

                Download            

# LIEUTENTANT GENERAL THOMAS L. JAMES 

##                 Deputy Commander            

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of SAVVIS, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



|(a) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                          |  |  |  |                         |  |                        
|------------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date:    November 5, 2009 |  |  |  | By:                     |  | /s/ Gregory W. Freiberg
|                          |  |  |  | Gregory W. Freiberg    
|                          |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer



38