alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.71

EXECUTION

# STRUCTURING FEE LETTER

| | December 29, 2006
| | -----------------

Fortis Capital Corp.
Two Embarcadero Center  Suite 1330 
San Francisco, CA 94111
Attention:  Menno van Lacum

Re:
Structuring Fee  Project Whale

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Reference is
hereby made to the Mandate Letter, dated as of the date hereof (the Mandate
Letter), between you and us. Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein
shall have the meanings given to such terms in the Mandate Letter.

In
order to induce Fortis to act as Structuring Agent as described in the Mandate Letter and
in consideration of the promises and covenants therein contained, the receipt and
sufficiency of which the parties hereto acknowledge, Interpool, Inc., by execution hereof,
hereby agrees to pay to Fortis Capital Corp., in its capacity as Structuring Agent, a
structuring fee (the Structuring Fee) in an amount up to Five Million Dollars
($5,000,000) payable as set forth herein. Such Structuring Fee shall be due and payable
subject to the terms herein and in the Mandate Letter, in two installments, the first in
the amount of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) and the second in the amount of Three
Million Dollars ($3,000,000). The first installment of the Structuring Fee shall be due
and payable on or prior to January 3, 2007 and shall be subject to Interpools right
to reimbursement of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) as set forth in the Mandate
Letter , as well as other conditions set forth in the Mandate Letter (and Exhibit A
thereto). The second installment of the Structuring Fee shall be due and payable solely
upon and subject to the occurrence of the closing of the Facilities and the earlier to
occur of (i) thirty (30) days after the closing (or earlier termination of any Facility by
Interpool after the closing) and (ii) the initial funding under any Facility.

This
letter agreement (this Structuring Fee Letter) shall be governed by the laws
of the State of New York and may be executed in any number of counterparts and by
different parties hereto in separate counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be
deemed to be an original and all of which when taken together shall constitute one and the
same Structuring Fee Letter. Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page to
this Structuring Fee Letter by facsimile shall be effective as delivery of a manually
executed counterpart of this Structuring Fee Letter.

# [Signatures Follow]

Dated this ___ day of 
December, 2006.

| | Very truly
yours,  
INTERPOOL, INC.

By:___________________________
Name:
Title:
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please sign below to acknowledge your
agreement to the foregoing terms and conditions. This agreement will become effective as
of the date first written above.

FORTIS CAPITAL CORP.

By:___________________________
Name:
Title:

By:___________________________
Name:
Title:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19613-19614]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9670]



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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Under Review by Office of Management and Budget

    Acting Agency Clearance Officer: David T. Copenhafer, (202) 942-
8800
    Upon written request copies available from: Securities and 
Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, 450 
Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549

Extension

Rule 15g-9

File No. 270-325

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1980 (44 U.S.C. Secs. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission has submitted for extension of OMB approval for Rule 15g-9 
[17 CFR 240.15g-9] (formerly Rule 15c2-6) under the Securities Exchange 
Act of [[Page 19614]] 1934 (15 U.S.C. Secs. 78a et seq.), which imposes 
sales practice requirements on broker-dealers who recommend purchases 
of certain low-priced, non-NASDAQ OTC securities to persons other than 
established customers of the broker-dealers. It is estimated that 
approximately 400 respondents will incur an average burden of 78 hours 
per year to comply with this rule, for a total annual burden of 31,200 
hours.
    Direct general comments to the Clearance Officer for the Securities 
and Exchange Commission at the address below. Direct any comments 
concerning the accuracy of the estimated average burden hours for 
compliance with the Commission rules and forms to David T. Copenhafer, 
Acting Director, Office of Information Technology, Securities and 
Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549 and 
the Clearance Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, 
Paperwork Project Number 3235-0385, Office of Management and Budget, 
Room 3208, New Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503.

    Dated: April 12, 1995.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-9670 Filed 4-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Stephen SARTAIN, Appellant.

No. WD 50204.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Nov. 28, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 30, 1996.

Application to Transfer Denied March 26, 1996.

Kenneth C. Hensley, Hensley & Hensley, Raymore, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David G. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SPINDEN, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and SMART, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Stephen Sartain was found guilty by a jury of one count of sodomy, § 566.060.3, RSMo Cum.Supp.1993, and one count of rape, § 566.030.3, RSMo Cum.Supp.1992. He was sentenced by the trial court to two concurrent fifteen-year terms of imprisonment. Mr. Sartain contends the trial court plainly erred by admitting the testimony of a nurse who examined the child victim and by admitting hearsay statements made by the victim.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1168 CAF 15-01576 PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF MICHELLE K. RUSIECKI, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V ORDER
AARON J. MARSHALL, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

DEBORAH J. SCINTA, ORCHARD PARK, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.
NUCHERENO & NAGEL, BUFFALO (MARTEN R. VIOLANTE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
MICHELE A. BROWN, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, BUFFALO.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Mary G. Carney, J.), entered August 18, 2015 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order granted the motion of respondent to dismiss the petition.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs ( see generally Matter of Chendo O. , 175 AD2d 635, 635).

Entered: February 3, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
                         -------------------------------

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the previously filed
Registration Statement on Forms S-8 File Nos. 333-69420 and 333-69416,
respectively and Form S-3 File No. 33-71692 of Dimeco, Inc. of our report dated
February 8, 2002, with respect to the audited consolidated financial statements
of Dimeco, Inc. and Subsidiary incorporated by reference in its Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2001, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 25, 2002.

/s/ S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.

Wexford, Pennsylvania
March 21, 2002
#### Rita CASKEY, Trustee, Respondent, v. Lee CRUSE, et al., Appellant.

No. WD 51560.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 27, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 1,1996.

Frank C. DeVries, Kansas City, for appellant.

George E. Kapke, Independence, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P. J., and SMART and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Lee B. Cruse and Nancy Poole appeal a judgment awarding title by adverse posses*68sion to Rita Caskey to a strip of land at Lake Tapawingo, Missouri. After careful review, the court has determined the appeal is without merit.

The judgment is affirmed. The decision is without significant precedential value. A memorandum of the reason for the opinion has been furnished the parties. Rule 84.16(b).
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-6556

Wahl Clipper Corporation:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40139

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE RODRIGO PENA-PEREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:15-CR-1189-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Rodrigo PenaPerez 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). Pena-Perez has filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well 

as Pena-Perez’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the 

 

* 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

October 18, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40139 Document: 00513722693 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2016
No. 16-40139

2

appeal 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.

 Case: 16-40139 Document: 00513722693 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2016
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**411 KA 13-01959** 
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., VALENTINO, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DARYLL J. CLARK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES ECKERT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (John Lewis DeMarco, J.), entered October 3, 2013. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq .). Contrary to defendant’s contention, County Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant him a downward departure from his presumptive risk level. “A defendant seeking a downward departure has the initial burden of ‘ . . . identifying, as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor, namely, a factor which tends to establish a lower likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community and is of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account’ ” by the risk assessment guidelines ( People v Watson , 95 AD3d 978, 979). Here, defendant asserted as mitigating factors that the statutory rape of which he was convicted does not usually result in a level three risk assessment and that the risk assessment instrument yielded the minimum amount of points to qualify as a level three risk, and we conclude that those are not “appropriate mitigating factor[s]” ( id. ; cf. People v Smith , 122 AD3d 1325, 1326; People v Martinez-Guzman , 109 AD3d 462, 462, lv denied 22 NY3d 854). With respect to defendant’s contention that a downward departure was warranted by his success in treatment, we agree that “[a]n offender’s response to treatment, if exceptional, can be the basis for a downward departure” (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 17 [2006]). “Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant established facts that his response to treatment was exceptional so as to warrant a downward departure, we**-2- 411 KA 13-01959** 

conclude upon examining all of the relevant circumstances that the court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s request for a downward departure” ( Smith , 122 AD3d at 1326; see People v Worrell , 113 AD3d 742, 743).

Entered: March 27, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-7050

General Motors:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXHIBIT 21


                   SUBSIDIARIES OF FLAG FINANCIAL CORPORATION


     FirstFlag Bank (formerly  known as First Federal Savings Bank of LaGrange),
a Georgia state chartered bank organized under the laws of the United States and
operates under the following  trade names:  First Flag Bank  Hogansville,  First
Flag Bank - Atlanta and FLAG Mortgage..

     Citizens  Bank,  a state  bank  organized  under  the laws of the  State of
Georgia.  Citizens Bank also operates  under the following  tradenames:  Bank of
Milan,  Empire Banking  Company,  The Brown Bank,  First Flag Bank-  Statesboro,
FlagTech and Citizens Bank Agency d/b/a Flag Insurance Services.

     Thomaston  Federal  Savings  Bank is a  federally  chartered  savings  bank
organized under the laws of the United States.
## 2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
11-29-2007 

# T i l lio v . M e ndel sohn
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-1123

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. 

## Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Ti l l io v . M e nde l s o hn " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 174. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/174

## NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 07-1123

__________ PATRICK D. TILLIO, SR. Appellant v. JULES MENDELSOHN

____________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D. C. No. 06-cv-01977) District Judge: Hon. Cynthia M. Rufe

______________________ Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 25, 2007 Before: BARRY, CHAGARES AND ROTH, Circuit Judges Opinion filed November 29, 2007

__________ O P I N I O N

___________ PER CURIAM Appellant Patrick D. Tillio, Sr. appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing his

## 2 

## pro se complaint for failure to prosecute. We will affirm
. In May 2006, Tillio filed a pro se complaint apparently arising out of the tax sale of his property. The next month, Tillio attempted to serve the defendant with the summons and complaint. No further activity in the case occurred until November 28, 2006, when the District Court ordered Tillio to show causewithin 14 days why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Tillio failed to respond, and the District Court dismissed the action on December 20, 2006. This timely appeal followed. Even according Tillio the special consideration afforded to pro se litigants, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion. After several months of inactivity, the District Court directed Tillio to show cause why the case should not be dismissed, warned him that failure to comply with its show cause order could result in dismissal, and provided him an opportunity to respond. Tillio has not explained his failure to prosecute this action, and there is no indication that he failed to receive the show cause order or that he did not understand it. For these reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s order dismissing the case.
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 72 (Friday, April 14, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Pages 19115-19116]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9355]

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

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Time and Date: Approximately 12 noon, Wednesday, April 19, 1995, 
following a recess at the conclusion of the open meeting.

Place: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, C Street 
entrance between 20th and 21st Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered:

    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal 
Reserve System employees.
    2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced 
meeting.

Contact Person for More Information: Mr. Joseph R. Coyne, Assistant to 
the Board; (202) 452-3204. You may call [[Page 19116]] (202) 452-3207, 
beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before this 
meeting, for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company 
applications scheduled for the meeting.

    Dated: April 12, 1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-9355 Filed 4-12-95; 11:03 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 11, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18377-18378]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8891]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[IA-50-94]
RIN 1545-AS98


Allowances Received by Members of the Armed Forces in Connection 
With Moves to New Permanent Duty Stations; Hearing Cancellation

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed 
regulations.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides notice of cancellation of a public 
hearing on proposed regulations relating to the exclusion from gross 
income of [[Page 18378]] certain allowances received by members of the 
Armed Forces in connection with a change of permanent duty station.

DATES: The public hearing originally scheduled for April 21, 1995, 
beginning at 10:00 a.m. is cancelled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christina Vasquez of the Regulations 
Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate), (202) 622-6803 (not a toll-
free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject of the public hearing is 
proposed regulations under sections 61 and 217(g) of the Internal 
Revenue Code. A notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public 
hearing appearing in the Federal Register for Wednesday, December 21, 
1994 (59 FR 65739), announced that a public hearing on the proposed 
regulations would be held on Friday, April 21, 1995, beginning at 10:00 
a.m., in the IRS Auditorium, 7400 Corridor, Internal Revenue Building, 
1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC.
    The public hearing scheduled for Friday, April 21, 1995, is 
cancelled.
Cynthia E. Grigsby,
Chief, Regulations Unit Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
[FR Doc. 95-8891 Filed 4-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P