alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Brunswick Engineering, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Atlantic Polishing Mill, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 50,833.

First District, First Division.

October 3, 1966.

Rehearing denied October 18, 1966.

Samuel Morgan, of Chicago, for appellant; Philip M. Bloom and Frank Bloom & Starr, of Chicago, for appellee.

Opinion by

JUSTICE MURPHY.

Not to be published in full.
8th May, 2014

To,

M/s DLF Assets Private Limited,

10th Floor, DLF Gateway Tower,

DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase III,

Gurgaon 122002



|Subject: | Lettersof Intent dated 14thFebruary, 2014, executed between M/s DLF Assets Private Limited and M/s WNS Global Services Private
Limited.
|-------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Sir,

This is with
reference to the Letters of Intent dated 14th February, 2014 (LOI) executed between M/s DLF Assets Private Limited and M/s WNS Global Services Private Limited for the space take-up of approx. 147,260 sq. ft. on 8th, 9th, 10th & part
11th Floors in Block A2 and 8th, 9th & 10th Floors in Block A3 at DLF World Tech Park, NH8 (hereinafter referred to as said Premises) by M/s WNS Global Services Private Limited.

The LOI required the lease deed to be signed on or before 1st March, 2014 or at a mutually agreed date,
failing which the LOIs would automatically terminate. As the execution of lease deed is still pending, we request for extension of time for execution of the lease deed till 17th May, 2014. We
undertake to execute the lease deed for the aforesaid Premises by 17th May, 2014, failing which the LOIs shall stand terminated and the consequence as stipulated in the LOI shall prevail.

Further, as mutually agreed between us, the Lease Commencement date that was agreed in the LOI shall be revised to 28th April, 2014.

Kindly sign this letter in token of your acknowledgement of the content of this letter.

Yours Faithfully,

For and on behalf of

WNS Global Services Private Limited

/s/ Ronald
DMello

Authorized Signatory

Agreed and Accepted

For and on behalf of

DLF Assets Private Limited

/s/ Baljeet Singh

Authorized Signatory



1
Exhibit 32.1

Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Pacific Enterprises (the "Company") certifies that:

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2006 (the "Quarterly Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

May 2, 2006

/S/  Edwin A. Guiles
Edwin A. Guiles
Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7352

ROBERT BRUCE GILLINS,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN R. HUDGINS,

 Respondent - Appellee,

and

UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY HAZELTON; DIRECTOR MICHAEL 

CARVAJAL, Bureau of Prisons,

Respondents.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:21-cv-00093-JPB-JPM)

Submitted: February 23, 2024 Decided: March 27, 2024

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Bruce Gillins, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7352 Doc: 23 Filed: 03/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Bruce Gillins, a federal prisoner, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition 

challenging the execution of his sentence, arguing that his federal and state sentences 

should have run concurrently and that he was denied due process and equal protection with 

regard to sentencing credit. The district court denied relief, finding that Gillins had failed 

to exhaust administrative remedies and that, in any event, his due process claim failed on 

the merits. We dismissed Gillins’ appeal of that order as interlocutory because the district 

court had not addressed the equal protection claim. Gillins v. Hudgins, No. 22-6069, 2022 

WL 1711685 (4th Cir. May 27, 2022). On remand, the district court concluded that Gillins 

had not fully exhausted his claim, that he failed to show exhaustion should be excused, and 

that, in any event, the equal protection claim lacked merit, noting that the federal judgment 

did not order the sentence to run concurrently with any other sentence. We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error in the district court’s denial of Gillins’ due process 

and equal protection claims on the merits. See generally 18 U.S.C. § 3584. Accordingly, 

we affirm. Gillins v. Hudgins, No. 5:21-cv-00093-JPB-JPM (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 7, 2021; 

Nov. 1, 2022). We grant Gillins’ motion to seal the motion and accompanying 

supplemental authority filed in October 2023, and we deny his motion to compel. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7352 Doc: 23 Filed: 03/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
* 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 forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 23, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10432 Conference Calendar

JOHANNA BELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus FARMERS INSURANCE; MID CENTURY INSURANCE, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CV-2221-N

-------------------- Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Johanna Bell appeals the district court’s dismissal of her civil suit without prejudice for want of service. Bell has failed to brief, and has thus abandoned, the issue whether the district court erred in determining that her suit should be dismissed due to her failure to effect service on the defendants.
See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); see also F ED . R. A PP . P. 28(a)(9). Consequently, Bell’s appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. SeeNo. 05-10432 -2- Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
SEC form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                              19
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      567
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        541
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,433
<PP&E>                                           3,470
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,789
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,076
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,173
<BONDS>                                          1,854
<COMMON>                                           653
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              194
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1,006)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,076
<SALES>                                          1,892
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,892
<CGS>                                            1,430
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,430
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     2
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  42
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    140
<INCOME-TAX>                                        43
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                105
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       105
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.99<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.88<F2>
<FN>
<F1> Represents basic earnings per share as defined in FASB Statement 128.
<F2> Represents diluted earnings per share as defined in FASB Statement 128.
</FN>

</TABLE>
EX-4.44



 Exhibit 4.44 

SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT No 1 
 Party A:
Shanghai Juhuo Network Technology Co., Ltd. 
 Address: Building No.3, No.700 Yishan Road, Shanghai, the People’s Republic of China 

Representative: 
 Contact Number 

Party B: Shanghai Giant Network Technology Co., Ltd. 

Address: Building No.3, No.700 Yishan Road, Shanghai, the People’s Republic of China 

Representative: 
 Contact Number 

WHEREAS, 
 Party A and Party B entered into the
Distribution and License Agreement (the “Original Agreement”) in June 2011. Party A’s number for the Original Agreement is HT1111120001 while Party B’s number for the Original Agreement is HT0411120016. According to the
Original Agreement, Party A authorizes Party B to promote and distribute the platform software within the mainland China. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, adhering
to the principles of equality and mutual benefit, and after friendly negotiations, the Parties reach the following supplementary agreement to the Original Agreement: 
  

	1.	The Parties agree to modify Article 6.2 of the Original Agreement as follows from April 1, 2013: 


“6.2 Royalty Fee 
 The
calculation method of royalty fee shall be as follows: 
 ”the number of Game Points consumed/100*(1-the ratio between the discount of
game card and channeling cost)*(1- the rate of taxes and related fees)* sharing rate 
 Note: 

the ratio between the discount of game card and channeling cost shall be determined by the average unite price in the previous year. ( the
specific figure will be further confirmed by both parties through mails) 
 the rate of taxes and related fees: determined by tax policy
decided by the government 
 sharing rate: 24% 

royalty fee shall be paid in RMB 
  

	2.	All the rights and obligations already in existence before the modification of Article 6.2 shall be governed by the Original Agreement. 


 

	3.	This Supplementary Agreement supersedes the Original Agreement with respect to the subject matter hereof. Matters that are not included in this Supplementary Agreement shall be governed by the Original Agreement.










	4.	This Supplementary Agreement shall become effective immediately upon sealed by the Parties. This Supplementary Agreement is prepared in two counterparts, each party has one counterpart, and each of the counterparts
shall be deemed an original. 

 (The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.) 

Shanghai Juhuo Network Technology Co., Ltd. 

Representative: 
 Date: 

Party B: Shanghai Giant Network Technology Co., Ltd. 

Representative: 
 Date:
Exhibit 10.3

nStor Technologies, Inc.100 Century BoulevardWest Palm Beach, Florida 33417

April 30, 2004

Cenvill Recreation, Inc.100 Century BlvdWest Palm Beach, FL 33417Attn: Mark F. Levy

Dear Mr. Levy:

We have agreed to the following amendments to that certain Promissory Note, dated October 23, 2003, in the amount of $1,800,000 (the “Note”), payable by nStor Technologies, Inc. to Cenvill Recreation, Inc., copies of which are attached hereto.

1)         The maturity date of the Note is hereby extended from April 30, 2004  to July 31, 2004 (“Maturity”).

2)         Accrued and unpaid interest on the Note through April 30, 2004 in the amount of $44,879 is hereby added to the $1,800,000 principal amount of the Note so that as of the date hereof, the principal amount of theNote has been increased to $1,844,879 (the “New Principal Amount”).  Interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) per annum will accrue on the unpaid New Principal Amount and be payable at Maturity.

Except as set forth in this letter, the Note remains unmodified and in full force and effect.

Please indicate your concurrence with the foregoing.

Sincerely,

                                                                                               Cenvill Recreation, Inc.

                                                                                               Agreed:/s/ Jack Jaiven                                                                        By:  /s/ Mark F. LevyJackJaiven                                                                                          Mark F. LevyVice President andTreasurer                                                               President
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                       ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE COMPANIES INC.
                     COMPUTATION OF INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
                    for the three months and six months ended
                             June 30, 1997 and 1996
                      (in thousands, except per share data)
                                   (unaudited)
                                   Exhibit 11

                            Three Months          Six Months
                         ------------------   -----------------               
                          1997       1996       1997      1996
                         --------   -------   -------    ------- 
<S>                      <C>        <C>       <C>        <C>
PRIMARY INCOME (LOSS)
  PER SHARE:
Net income               $ 4,242    $ 3,025   $ 8,156     $ 7,503
                         =======    =======   =======     =======

Weighted average number
 of shares outstanding    15,052     14,917    15,021      14,892

Adjustment for stock
  options                    186        154       207         145
                         -------    -------   -------      ------


Adjusted weighted 
  average number of 
  shares outstanding      15,238     15,071    15,228      15,037
                         =======    =======   =======     =======

Primary income (loss)
  per share              $   .28     $  .20   $   .54      $  .50
                         =======     =======  =======     =======

FULLY DILUTED INCOME
  PER SHARE:
Net income               $ 4,242     $ 3,025  $ 8,156    $ 7,503 
                         =======     =======  =======    =======

Weighted average number
  of shares outstanding   15,292      15,157   15,261     15,132

Adjustment for stock 
  options                    249         180      249       190
                         -------     -------   -------   ------

Adjusted weighted 
  average number of
  shares outstanding      15,541     15,337    15,510    15,322
                         =======    =======   =======   =======

Fully diluted income
  per share              $   .27     $  .20   $   .53    $  .49
                         =======    =======    =======  =======
</TABLE>
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-51077

Summary Calendar

 

ANTONIO ALONSO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DEBORAH A. PARKER ET AL.,

Defendants,

NATIVIDAD Q. VASQUEZ,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-96-CV-106

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

September 27, 1999

Before KING Chief Judge, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Antonio Alonso, TDJC# 462941, appeals the dismissal of his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to prosecute. The district

court dismissed the case at the beginning of trial because Alonso

did not proceed in English. The district court found that Alonso

had not given notice that he could not speak English and needed

an interpreter. However, Alonso had given notice on December 19,
No. 97-51077

-2-

1996, that he could not speak English when he filed a motion for

appointment of counsel, which the district court denied. 

Further, on September 19, 1997, approximately two months before

trial, Alonso filed a motion requesting an interpreter and

renewing his request for appointment of counsel. The district

court did not rule on this later motion. Thus, the district

court’s reasons for dismissing Alonso’s claim are not supported

by the record. The district court abused its discretion in

dismissing Alonso’s case. See Clofer v. Perego, 106 F.3d 678,

679 (5th Cir. 1997); Edwards v. City of Houston, 78 F.3d 983, 994

(5th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, the judgment is VACATED and the

case is REMANDED. 

In addition, Alonso has moved to appoint Corey Baker as his

interpreter and, in the alternative, moved for appointment of

counsel. These motions are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Alonso’s

refiling such motions in the district court. In light of the

foregoing, we need not consider at this time Alonso’s argument

that the district court erred in not appointing counsel. 

VACATED AND REMANDED. ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS ARE DENIED.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Elijah Lazarus, Respondent, v. Daniel E. Sheehan and Others, Constituting the Board of Fire Commissioners of the City of Elmira, N. Y., Appellants.

Ordered that the decision herein be Ordered amended so as to read as follows: “Final order reversed on the ground that at the time of the granting thereof and of the trial the office to which the order directs relator’s reinstatement was occupied by one Masterson, not a party to this proceeding, who had been appointed thereto and who was discharging the .duties of said office. It does not appear whether or not the appointment was made before this proceeding was commenced. Mew trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event. Opinion per curiam. All concurred, except Smith, P. J., not voting.” (See 128 App. Div. 743.)
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 6078] 

The Shipping Coordinating Committee (SHC) through the Subcommittee on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping will conduct an open meeting at 9:30 a.m. on February 19, 2007. The meeting will be held in Room 10-623/0718 of Jemal's Riverside Building, 1900 Half Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593. The purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the 39th session of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Sub-Committee on Standards of Training and Watchkeeping (STW 39) to be held on March 3-7, 2008, at the Royal Horticultural Halls and Conference Centre in London, England. The primary matters to be considered include: 

—Comprehensive review of the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW Convention) and the STCW Code; 

—Training for seafarer safety representatives; 

—Unlawful practices associated with certificates of competency; 

—Validation of model training courses; 

—Review of principles for establishing the safe manning levels of ships; and 

—Training requirements for the control and management of ship's ballast water and sediments. 

Please note that hard copies of documents associated with STW 39 will not be available at this meeting, the documents will be available at the meeting in portable document format (.pdf) on CD-ROM. To request documents before the meeting please write to the address provided below, and include your name, address, phone number, and electronic mail address. Copies of the papers will be sent via electronic mail to the address provided. 

Members of the public may attend the meeting up to the seating capacity of the room. Interested persons may seek information by writing: Mayte Medina, U.S. Coast Guard (CG-5221), Room 1210, 2100 Second St., SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001 or by calling; (202) 372-1406. 

Dated: January 28, 2008. 

Mark W. Skolnicki, 

Executive Secretary, Shipping Coordinating Committee, Department of State.

[FR Doc. E8-1952 Filed 2-1-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-09-P
EX-4.22.1



 Exhibit 4.22.1 
  

			
	



	  	 Rolls-Royce plc
 [*]

www.rolls-royce.coM


 Aerovias del Continente Americana S.A., Avianca 

Centro Administrativo, 
 Avenida El Dorado, No. 92-30, 

Bogota, Colombia 
 Date: 15th June 2007 

Dear Sirs, 
 SIDE LETTER NUMBER ONE TO GENERAL TERMS
AGREEMENT REFERENCE 
 DEG 5105, DATED 15th June 2007 (THE “AGREEMENT”) 

INTRODUCTION 
 Aerovias Del Continente Americano
S.A., Avianca (“Avianca”) has agreed to purchase certain Boeing 787 aircraft from Boeing, which will be powered by new Trent 1000 Engines (the “Aircraft”). 

[*] 
 This Side Letter Number One to the Agreement
(“SLAV’) records the agreement of the [*]. 
 Defined terms used in this SLA1 shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement, unless defined
otherwise. 
 NOW THEREFORE IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 

[*] 
  

	6	ASSIGNMENT 

  

	6.1	The terms and conditions of this SLA1 are personal to Avianca [*]. 

  

	7	GENERAL 

 All rights, obligations and liabilities under this SLA1 shall be subject
to and in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement and except as specifically amended herein, the provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect as if set out in full herein and further, this SLA1 is made without prejudice
to either of the Parties’ existing rights (unless expressly stated in this SLA1) set forth or arising under the Agreement. [*] 

  
 1 









	8	CONFIDENTIALITY AND LAW 

 New York Law shall govern this SLA1. [*] 

 

	9	FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION  

 Transmission by facsimile of a signed
counterpart signature page shall be deemed and constitute due and valid delivery of an executed counterpart of this SLA1. 

  
 2 








 As WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties have caused this SLA1 to be signed on their behalf by the hands of their duly
authorised officers the day and year first before written. 
  

											
		 	Signed for and on behalf of:	 		 	Signed for and on behalf of:
				
		 	AVIANCA	 		 	ROLLS-ROYCE plc
						
		 	By	 	 	 		 	By	 	 
		 	Printed 	 	 	 		 	Printed 	 	 
		 	Title	 	 	 		 	Title	 	 


  
 3 








 [*] 

  
 4