alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.4





 Exhibit 10.4 

EXECUTION VERSION 
 September 5, 2019 

Motorola Solutions, Inc. 
 500 W. Monroe Street 

Chicago, Illinois 60661 
 Attention: General Counsel 

Re: Amendments to Investment Agreement 

Reference is made to that certain Investment Agreement, dated as of August 4, 2015, by and among Motorola Solutions, Inc. (the
“Company”), Silver Lake Partners IV, L.P. (“Partners IV”) and Silver Lake Partners IV Cayman (AIV II), L.P. (together with Partners IV, the “SL Parties”) (such agreement, the “Investment
Agreement”). 
 Reference is also made to that certain Investment Agreement, dated as of the date hereof, by and among the Company,
Silver Lake Partners Alpine, L.P. and Silver Lake Alpine (Offshore Master), L.P. (the “New Investment Agreement”). 
 The
Company and the SL Parties hereby agree that, subject to, and effective as of, the consummation of the Closing (as such term is defined in the New Investment Agreement, the “Closing”) in accordance with the terms of the New
Investment Agreement, the rights and obligations of the parties to the Investment Agreement pursuant to Section 4.07 of the Investment Agreement shall terminate and be of no further force and effect; provided, that such termination shall
not result in the waiver of any breach (or any cause of action in respect thereof) of Section 4.07 of the Investment Agreement occurring prior to such termination. 

Except for the provisions set forth herein, the Investment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, and this letter agreement shall
not be deemed to constitute a waiver or modification of any other representation, warranty, condition or covenant contained in the Investment Agreement. 

Sections 6.08, 6.09 and 6.10 of the Investment Agreement are incorporated herein by reference, mutatis mutandis. 

  
 [Signature Page to
Follow] 













 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this letter agreement as of the day and year
first above written. 
  

			
	SILVER LAKE PARTNERS IV, L.P.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Egon Durban

	Name:	 	Egon Durban
	Title:	 	Managing Director
	
	SILVER LAKE PARTNERS IV CAYMAN (AIV II), L.P.
	
	By: Silver Lake Technology Associates IV Cayman, L.P., its general partner
	
	By: Silver Lake (Offshore) AIV GP IV, Ltd., its general partner
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Greg Mondre

	Name:	 	Greg Mondre
	Title:	 	Director


  

			
	AGREED AND ACCEPTED:
	
	MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Kristin L. Kruska

	Name:	 	Kristin L. Kruska
	Title:	 	Corporate Vice President and Secretary


  
 [Signature Page
to Amendment to Investment Agreement]
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 126

To limit further production of the Trident II (D–5) missile.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

Mr. LUTHER (for himself and Mr. RAMSTAD) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To limit further production of the Trident II (D–5) missile.

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 ‘‘Trident II (D–5) Mis5 sile Production Limitation Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. DISCONTINUATION OF PRODUCTION OF NEW TRI7 DENT II (D–5) MISSILES.

8 (a) PRODUCTION LIMITATION.—Funds appropriated

9 for the Department of Defense for fiscal years after fiscal

10 year 2002 may not be obligated or expended to commence

11 production of additional Trident II (D–5) missiles.
2

•

1 (b) AUTHORIZED SCOPE OF TRIDENT II (D–5) PRO2 GRAM.—Amounts appropriated for the Department of De3 fense may be expended for the Trident II (D–5) missile

4 program only for the completion of production of those

5 Trident II (D–5) missiles which were commenced with

6 funds appropriated for a fiscal year before fiscal year

7 2003.

Æ
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1640

___________

John Henry Williams, ADC #93081 *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Max Mobley, Chief Deputy, Arkansas * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Department of Correction; Greg *

Harmon, Warden, East Arkansas * [UNPUBLISHED]

Regional Unit, ADC; Dottie *

Yarbrough, CMS Infirmary Manager, *

East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; *

Shirley Crawford, R.N., East Arkansas *

Regional Unit, ADC; Flora Jones, R.N., *

East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; *

Lisa Montgomery, R.N., East Arkansas *

Regional Unit, ADC; Joseph Spears, *

R.N., East Arkansas Regional Unit, *

ADC; Shelat Farmer, Dr., East *

Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Polly *

James, A.R.O., East Arkansas Regional *

Unit, ADC; Charles E. Jackson, Sgt., *

East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; *

Didi Lockhart, CMS Grievance *

Manager, East Arkansas Regional Unit, *

ADC; Jimmy Banks, Assistant Warden, *

East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC, *

originally sued as Terry Banks; Zina *

Ousley, CMS Infirmary Manager, East *

Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC, *

originally sued as Zina Ousely; Linda *

Driver, CMS Medical Records, East *
1

The Honorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

-2-

Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC, *

originally sued as Carolyn Driver, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: April 24, 2008

Filed: April 28, 2008

___________

Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate John Henry Williams appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant

of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We agree with the district court

that summary judgment was warranted, see Roe v. Crawford, 514 F.3d 789, 793 (8th

Cir. 2008) (standard of review); and that Williams provided no basis under Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b) for reconsidering the grant of summary

judgment, see Christensen v. Qwest Pension Plan, 462 F.3d 913, 919-20 (8th Cir.

2006) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) standard of review); Arnold v. Wood, 238 F.3d 992, 998

(8th Cir. 2001) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) standard of review). We decline to consider

Williams’s new evidence and allegations. See Minn. Supply Co. v. Raymond Corp.,

472 F.3d 524, 532 (8th Cir. 2006) (this court considers only evidence before district

court when summary judgment ruling was made); Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-

15 (8th Cir. 2004) (declining to address pro se arguments first raised on appeal).

Accordingly, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and we deny Williams’s pending

motions.
**Exhibit32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Covance Inc. (“Covance”) on Form 10-Q for the period endedSeptember 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, William E. Klitgaard, Corporate Senior VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of Covance, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

(1)          The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Covance.

Date: November 2, 2006
|        | /s/    | William E. Klitgaard            |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------|
|   |   | William E. Klitgaard            |
|   |   | Corporate Senior Vice President |
|   |   | and Chief Financial Officer     |
|   |   | (Principal Financial Officer)   |

** **

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-77-01-SM

Johnell Bennett

O R D E R

Defendant Bennett’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 29). Trial has been rescheduled for the February

2008 trial period. Defendant Bennett shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights

not later than December 31, 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: January 31, 2008 at 4:00 p.m. 

Jury Selection: February 5, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:06-cr-00077-SM Document 30 Filed 12/18/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

December 18, 2007

cc: Kevin E. Sharkey, Esq.

Mark Zuckerman, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00077-SM Document 30 Filed 12/18/07 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Northern Laminate Sales, Inc.

v. Civil No. 05-cv-028-JM

Grace Electron USA Corp.

O R D E R

 Plaintiff moves to vacate stay and to vacate arbitration

award. Document no. 12. 

On March 23, 2005 this case was stayed pursuant to a

stipulation for arbitration filed by the parties. Document no.

11. The stay order directed the parties to file a stipulation

for dismissal upon completion of the arbitration. Instead,

plaintiff claims that the award should be set aside because

defendant failed to provide copies of some emails which had been

requested. 

Defendant does not deny that a computer belonging to Mr.

Wang had crashed and that a former contact in China deleted his

communications when he left the company. Defense counsel has

shown the retrieval efforts made and which were certified to the

arbitrator. 

Not only has plaintiff failed to show there were emails

Case 1:05-cv-00028-JM Document 14 Filed 12/06/06 Page 1 of 2
2

intentionally deleted or not searched for, but he has failed to

show that the emails ever existed and/or that they would have

made a difference in the award. Plaintiff has certainly not

shown any fraud. 

The request to vacate is denied. The parties are directed

to file the Rule 41 Stipulation within thirty (30) days or the

case will be dismissed. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: December 6, 2006

cc: Lawrence M. Edelman, Esq.

 Andrew W. Serell, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00028-JM Document 14 Filed 12/06/06 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-30-PB

Roselyn Adeyeye

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

July 10, 2007 trial in the above case, citing the need for 

additional time to complete discovery and engage in plea

negotiations. The government and co-defendants do not object to

a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from July 10, 2007 to September 5, 2007. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:07-cr-00030-PB Document 9 Filed 06/25/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The June 26, 2007 final pretrial conference is continued to

August 29, 2007 at 3:30 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

June 25, 2007

cc: Mark Howard, Esq.

Alfred Rubega, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00030-PB Document 9 Filed 06/25/07 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATE      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF      2002 **

| 1. | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/                Jerome I. Feldman                                                                                              |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Jerome                I. FeldmanChairman,                Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and                Treasurer |

----
IIB

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1374

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 17, 2002

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 600 Calumet Street in Lake Linden, Michigan,

as the ‘‘Philip E. Ruppe Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 1374 RFS

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 600 Calumet Street in Lake Linden, Michigan,

4 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Philip E. Ruppe

5 Post Office Building’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

10 to the ‘‘Philip E. Ruppe Post Office Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives April 16, 2002.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
Case 1:06-cv-00280-PB Document 143-3 Filed 07/18/2007 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Autobytel Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 (the Report), we, James E. Riesenbach, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Monty A. Houdeshell, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    James E. RiesenbachJames E. RiesenbachChief Executive Officer November 9, 2007/s/    Monty A. HoudeshellMonty A. HoudeshellExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer November 9, 2007


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Autobytel Inc. and will be retained by Autobytel
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Order filed April 28, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-21-00377-CV

____________

VICTOR ANTHONY CHARLES, Appellant

V.

CHERYL HARRIS DIGGS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 234th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019-08158

O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed October 28, 2021, and the first supplemental 

clerk’s record was filed on December 21, 2021. We have determined that a relevant 

item in the first supplemental clerk’s record is defective. See TEX.R. APP. P. 34.5(d). 

Specifically, most of the letters are missing from the document that begins at page 

38 in the first supplemental clerk’s record, described in the index as “Plaintiff’s 

Reply to Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s No-Evidence 

Motion for Summary Judgment,” filed May 21, 2021. 
2

The Harris County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s 

record on or before May 9, 2022, containing a readable copy of “Plaintiff’s Reply

to Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s No-Evidence Motion 

for Summary Judgment,” filed May 21, 2021.

If the case file does not contain a readable “Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s 

Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s No-Evidence Motion for Summary 

Judgment,” the district clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record 

containing a certified statement that the case file does not contain the item in a 

readable form.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Wise and Jewell.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Christoper T. Roller

v.

New Hampshire Department of

Corrections, Commissioner, et al.

Case No. 06-fp-467

O R D E R

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted,

but pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended, the filing fee must

be paid as follows: the sum of $11.19 is due no later than

February 20, 2007. In addition, 20% of each preceding month’s

income credited to plaintiff’s account to be remitted by the New

Hampshire State Prison when the amount in the account exceeds

$10.00 until the sum of $350.00 has been paid. Failure to pay

the fee as ordered will result in dismissal of the action without

prejudice. In all other respects plaintiff’s request for in

forma pauperis has been granted.

This case has been assigned number 06-cv-467-PB.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Steven J. McAuliffe

United States District Judge

Date : 1/19/07

cc: Bonnie S. Reed, Financial Administrator

New Hampshire State Prison, Inmate Accounts

Case 1:06-cv-00467-PB Document 6 Filed 01/19/2007 Page 1 of 1

Roller v. NH Department of Corrections, Commissioner et al Doc. 6

Dockets.Justia.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 06-cr-214-01-JD

Beverly Starr Dove

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

13) filed by defendant is granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days. 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. § 3131(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: July 23, 2007

cc: Jeffrey Levin, Esq.

Alfred Rubega, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00214-JD Document 14 Filed 07/23/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joseph Mulvey

v. Civil No. 05-cv-310-SM

John Lynch, Governor of the

State of New Hampshire, et al

O R D E R

The plaintiff having failed to comply with the Order dated February 9, 2006 by

Magistrate Judge Muirhead, the above case is hereby dismissed for lack of prosecution.

SO ORDERED.

March 16, 2006 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Joseph Mulvey, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00310-SM Document 6 Filed 03/16/06 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Broadcast Music, Inc., et al.

v. Case No. 05-cv-371-PB

106 Fine Foods, et al.

ORDER STRIKING DOCUMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 5.2

DOCUMENT/FILER: #14, 106 Fine Foods Corp. Answer to the Complaint, filed by Ferdinand

Fricker and Neville Pereira

DATE FILED: November 14, 2005

The document above fails to comply with: 

LR 83.6(c) Corporation or unincorporated association may not appear in any

action or proceeding pro se

It is herewith ordered that the document is stricken, returned herewith to the submitting

party, and must be refiled. 

SO ORDERED.

December 1, 2005 /s/ Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

District Judge

cc: Todd A. Sullivan, Esq.

Ferdinand Fricker, Pro se. 

Neville Pereira, Pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00371-PB Document 15 Filed 12/01/05 Page 1 of 1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey ROWE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-6570.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 14, 2003.

Decided Aug. 21, 2003.

*281Jeffrey Rowe, Appellant Pro Se. G. David Hackney, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Rowe seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001).

We ■ have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rowe has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




December 2004


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: June 30, 2008
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------