alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
vctr_Ex10_3


		
			Exhibit 10.3
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			Third Amendment
		

		
			VICTORY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT INC.
		

		
			DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			WHEREAS, Victory Capital Management Inc. (“Employer”) has adopted and maintains the Victory Capital Management Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan (“Plan”) for the benefit of eligible employees;
		

		
			 
		

		
			WHEREAS, the Employer is permitted and desires to accommodate past service credit on account of its acquisition of USAA Investment Management Company (as of July 1, 2019).
		

		
			 
		

		
			RESOLVED FURTHER, that Section 3.4(b)(i) of the Plan is hereby amended by adding thereto a new subsection (F), to read as follows:
		

		
			 
		

		
			(F) For purposes of calculating Years of Service, employment with USAA and its subsidiaries and/or affiliates prior to 12/31/2019 shall be treated as employment with the Employer only for such former USAA employees who were employed by USAA and its subsidiary and/or affiliate immediately prior to being hired by Victory Capital Management, Inc. and only if hired by Victory Capital Management, Inc. prior to 12/31/2019.
		

		
			 
		

		
			RESOLVED FURTHER, that in all other respects the Plan is hereby modified and affirmed.
		

		
			 
		

		
			This Amendment is hereby adopted effective for Plan Years beginning on and after January 1, 2019.
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			Dated: July 29, 2019
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			VICTORY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT INC.
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			By:  /s/ NINA GUPTA
		

		
			Nina Gupta, Chief Legal Officer
The State of TexasAppellee

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 19, 2014

No. 04-14-00069-CR

Charles Arthur WARREN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR9856B

Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s second motion for extension of time is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is due 

on June 19, 2014. No further extensions will be granted.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 19th day of May, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
      This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Covance consolidated financial statements for the six months ended June 30, 1997
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001023131
<NAME>                        Covance Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    $US
       
<S>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                          27,097,000
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  141,979,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                     17,300,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               227,159,000
<PP&E>                                         321,058,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 147,083,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 462,195,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          162,977,000
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           572,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     127,676,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   462,145,000
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               281,115,000
<CGS>                                          185,979,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  243,754,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (51,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,188,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 33,224,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,093,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,146,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,096,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0

        

</TABLE>
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




December 2019


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: May 1, 2020
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certification
of Chief Financial Officer
 Pursuant
to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 I, C.W.
Gilluly, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:
  1.           I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of AMASYS
Corporation;
  2.           Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;
  3.           Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
  4.           The
small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:
  (a)         Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information
relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;
  (b)         Evaluated
the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within ninety (90) days prior to the filing of this
report (the “Evaluation Date”); and
  (c)         Presented
in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;
  5.           The
small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the
audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
  (a)         All
significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
could adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
  (b)         Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal
controls.
  6.           The
registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this report
whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in any
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
  
 
 July
      23, 2008
              /s/ C.W.
      Gilluly,
      Ed.D.C.W.
      Gilluly, Ed.D.Chief
      Financial Officer
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-20-00099-CR

Justin Edward Panus, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 368TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

NO. 16-2610-K368, THE HONORABLE RICK J. KENNON, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R A N D M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

PER CURIAM

Justin Edward Panus, acting pro se, has appealed the district court’s denial of his 

motion for postconviction forensic DNA testing. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 64.01-.05. 

However, our review of the record reflects that the ruling on Panus’s motion is not signed and 

consists only of a handwritten notation at the bottom of the motion stating “denied.”1 A written 

and signed appealable order is a prerequisite to invoking our appellate jurisdiction. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 26.2(a)(1); State v. Rosenbaum, 818 S.W.2d 398, 402 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Dewalt v. 

State, 417 S.W.3d 678, 685 n.32 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, pet. ref’d). 

1

 The clerk’s record case summary has a “Judge’s Docket Entry” dated “01/17/2020”

stating “Review of Motion for DNA Testing: Motion Denied (RK).” But that entry does not 

substitute for a signed order on the motion. Dewalt v. State, 417 S.W.3d 678, 685 n.32 (Tex. 

App.—Austin 2013, pet. ref’d) (noting that docket-sheet entries do not qualify as appealable 

orders).
2

Accordingly, this appeal is abated and the cause is remanded to the district court

for entry of a signed order as to Panus’s motion for forensic DNA testing. See Ex parte 

Crenshaw, 25 S.W.3d 761, 764 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d) (noting that 

court had previously abated appeal because record did not contain written order reflecting court’s 

ruling); see also Sturgis v. State, No. 05-08-00006-CR, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 2045, at *4-5 

(Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 24, 2010, pet. ref’d) (mem. op.) (noting that court had previously 

abated appeal because at time of appeal, trial court had not signed written order denying 

defendant’s motion for DNA testing). A supplemental clerk’s record containing the signed order 

is to be prepared and forwarded to this Court no later than April 30, 2020. 

It is so ordered March 31, 2020.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Baker and Triana

Abated and Remanded

Filed: March 31, 2020

Do Not Publish
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Thomas Sutliffe, et al.

v. Civil No. 06-474-JL

Town of Epping, et al.

PROCEDURAL ORDER

This court has issued an order granting, in large part, the

defendants’ motions to dismiss this action on the basis of res

judicata and collateral estoppel. With the assent of the

remaining defendants, the remaining plaintiffs have filed a

motion to stay their sole claim that survived dismissal while

they pursue an appeal of the court’s decision on the motion to

dismiss; the plaintiffs have already filed a notice of appeal to

that end. The court’s order granting the motions to dismiss in

part, however, does not constitute a final decision from which an

appeal lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See, e.g., United States v.

Metro. Dist. Comm’n, 847 F.2d 12, 14 (1st Cir. 1988) (“a judgment

becomes final and appealable when the court enters a decision

resolving the contested matter, leaving nothing to be done except

execution of the judgment”).

In the interests of saving the parties the time and expense

of pursuing an appeal in the absence of appellate jurisdiction,

Case 1:06-cv-00474-JL Document 67 Filed 05/06/08 Page 1 of 2
2

then, the court will DENY the motion to stay (document no. 66)

and STRIKE the notice of appeal (document no. 64). These actions

are without prejudice to the plaintiffs’ moving this court to

enter separate and final judgment on the claims disposed of by

the motions to dismiss. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Any such

motion shall specifically demonstrate that “there is no just

reason for delay” in doing so with reference to the criteria

endorsed by the court of appeals in Spiegel v. Trustees of Tufts

College, 843 F.2d 38, 42-43 & n. 3-4 (1st Cir. 1988). 

Alternatively, the remaining plaintiffs may move for voluntary

dismissal of their remaining claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

May 6, 2008

cc: Charles G. Douglas, III, Esq.

Benjamin T. King, Esq.

Charles P. Bauer, Esq.

Diane M. Gorrow, Esq.

Daniel J. Mullen, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00474-JL Document 67 Filed 05/06/08 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
10.16


 


	Final	


 


AMENDMENT
TO SERVICES AGREEMENT


 


THIS
AMENDMENT TO SERVICES AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”), dated as of September 6, 2018 and effective as of August
1, 2018 (the “Effective Date”), is made and entered into by and between INX Limited, a company organized under
the laws of Gibraltar (the “Company”) and Bentley Limited, a company organized under the laws of England and
Wales (the “Consultant”). Each of the Consultant and the Company shall sometimes be referred to as a “Party”
and collectively, as the “Parties”.


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS,
the Parties entered into a Services Agreement, dated March 8, 2018 (the “Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS,
the Parties desire to amend the Agreement, as further set forth herein.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants hereinafter set forth, the Parties agree as follows:


 


	1.	Capitalized
    terms not otherwise defined herein shall bear the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.
	 	 
	2.	Section
    2.1 (ii) shall be deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following:
	 	 
	 	“(ii)
    that the total aggregate number of Tokens granted to Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall not exceed 100,000 Tokens.”.
	 	 
	3.	Unless
    amended hereby, all provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 


 


[THE
REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]


 










    1


     


    

 


[Signature
Page to the Amendment to Services Agreement]


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.


 


	/s/
    Alan Silbert	 	/s/
    James Crossley
	INX
    LIMITED	 	BENTLEY
    LIMITED
	 	 	 
	By:
    Alan Silbert, Director	 	By:
    James Crossley, Director


 


 


2
Exhibit 35.17  LOGO 225 Franklin Street 18th Floor Boston, MA 02110 T 877.526.3562 ngkf.com Officers Certificate Pursuant to
the requirements of the applicable Servicing Agreement for the transactions listed on Schedule I hereto, for which Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, and Berkeley Point Capital LLC d/b/a Newmark
Knight Frank, as Primary Servicer, the undersigned, Ronald Steffenino, a Senior Managing Director of Berkeley Point Capital LLC d/b/a Newmark Knight Frank, hereby certifies subject to any limitations listed on Schedule I hereto, as of the date
hereof, solely in his capacity as an officer and not in his individual capacity, as follows:  1.
A review of the activities of the Primary Servicer during the preceding calendar year (the Reporting
Period) and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and  2.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Primary Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations
under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this
Certificate as of the 31st day of January, 2019. Berkeley Point Capital LLC d/b/a Newmark Knight Frank  LOGO Senior Managing Director, Servicing and Asset Management  BPC d/b/a NKF Primary Servicer for
Midland




---

LOGO Schedule I Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates; Berkeley Point Capital LLC d/b/a Newmark Knight Frank as Primary Servicer:  COMM 2014-CCRE 17 COMM 2014-GC24 COMM 2015-CCRE23 COMM 2015-GC30 COMM 2015-LC19 CGCMT 2016-C3 CCRESG 2016 HEAT CGCMT 2017-C4 BMARK 2018 B3 UBS 2018 C12 UBS 2018 C8 MSCI 2018 H4
 COMM 2014-CCRE19 COMM 2014-UBS4 COMM 2015 CCRE27 GSCCRE 2015-HULA COMM 2015-LC21 CFCRE 2016-C7 CCUBS 2017-Cl UBS 2017-C5 MSCI 2018 L1 UBS 2018 C14 UBS 2018 C9
   BPC d/b/a NKF Primary Servicer for
Midland
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Resource Management Company

v. Civil No. 06-cv-366-JD

Frank Gregory

O R D E R

Attorney Callahan was requested to correct his appearance to

whoever he is representing as decedent’s representative.

(Document No. 113). He has ignored the order of November 14,

2007. The stay is dissolved. Plaintiff should do his best to

comply with the service requirements set out in Fed. R. Civ. P.

25(a)(1) and refile the substitution motion. Unless the

decedent’s representatives promptly thereafter appear by counsel

default will be entered. Mr. Callahan is ordered to advise the

court immediately as to his status.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: December 20, 2007

cc: Benjamin C. Riggs, Jr., pro se

 Douglas N. Gould, Esq.

 Peter G. Callaghan, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00366-JD Document 114 Filed 12/20/07 Page 1 of 2
2

Case 1:06-cv-00366-JD Document 114 Filed 12/20/07 Page 2 of 2
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1587

To amend title 38, United States Code, to repeal the 30-year manifestation

period for a presumption of service-connection for respiratory cancers

occurring in veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam during

the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 25, 2001

Ms. MCKINNEY (for herself, Mr. EVANS, Mr. REYES, and Ms. BROWN of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to repeal the 30-

year manifestation period for a presumption of serviceconnection for respiratory cancers occurring in veterans

who served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period

beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7,

1975.

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 ‘‘Agent Orange Res5 piratory Cancer Act of 2001’’.
2

•HR 1587 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF 30-YEAR MANIFESTATION PERIOD FOR

2 PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE-CONNECTION

3 FOR RESPIRATORY CANCERS OCCURRING IN

4 VETERANS WHO SERVED IN THE REPUBLIC

5 OF VIETNAM DURING THE PERIOD BEGIN6 NING ON JANUARY 9, 1962, AND ENDING ON

7 MAY 7, 1975.

8 Section 1116(a)(2)(F) of title 38, United States

9 Code, is amended by striking ‘‘within 30 years’’ and all

10 that follows through ‘‘May 7, 1975’’.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

Randal Fritz

v. Case No. 06-cv-469-PB

Kenneth Brown and Katharine Daly

O R D E R

Randal Fritz charges in this action that Kenneth Brown and

Katharine Daly retaliated against him in violation of his rights

under the First Amendment. On May 29, 2007, I issued an order

dismissing certain of Fritz’s claims but allowing him to proceed

on other claims. Defendants have since filed a motion for

summary judgment attacking the remaining claims. 

The First Circuit has recently issued three decisions that

address the legal issues on which this case turns. These

decisions, Rosado-Quinones v. Toledo, 528 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008),

Davignon v. Hodgson, 524 F.3d 91 (1st Cir. 2008), and Curran v.

Cousins, 509 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2007), have not been adequately

addressed in the parties’ summary judgment briefs. Moreover,

they may call into question my ruling on the motion to dismiss

that Fritz was acting as a citizen on a matter of public concern

when he filed the lawsuit on which his current claims are based.

Case 1:06-cv-00469-PB Document 94 Filed 03/27/09 Page 1 of 2
-2-

Rather than attempt to address the significance of these

issues on my own, I direct the defendants to file a new summary

judgment motion addressing all three parts of the test described

in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006). Defendants’

renewed motion for summary judgment shall be filed on or before

April 27, 2009. Plaintiff’s response shall be filed on or before

May 27, 2009. Defendants’ reply memorandum shall be filed on or

before June 8, 2009. 

The clerk shall schedule the matter for oral argument as

soon as the renewed motion is ripe and the court will resolve the

matter on an expedited basis. The current motion (Doc. No. 48)

is denied without prejudice. Defendants’ motion to strike

portions of plaintiff’s objection (Doc. No. 56) is denied as

moot.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

District of New Hampshire

March 27, 2009

cc: Pierre Rumpf, Esq.

Paula Werme, Esq.

Nancy J. Smith, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00469-PB Document 94 Filed 03/27/09 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

V .

David Burns

Case No . 07-cr-135-01-SM

ORDER

Defendant Burns' motion to continue the final pretrial conference and tria l

is granted (document 11) . Trial has been rescheduled for the March 2008 trial

period. Defendant Burns shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later than

November 5, 2007 . On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall be

effective .

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S .C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference : February 22, 2008 at 11 :30 a .m.

Jury Selection : March 4, 2008 at 9:30 a .m.

Case 1:07-cr-00135-SM Document 13 Filed 10/24/07 Page 1 of 2
SO ORDERED .

October 24, 2007

cc : Jeffrey Levin, Esq.

Arnold Huftalen, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

2

Case 1:07-cr-00135-SM Document 13 Filed 10/24/07 Page 2 of 2