alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.30



AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO LEASE AGREEMENT



This Amendment No. 1 to Lease Agreement (the Amendment) dated as of July 10, 2003, amends that certain Lease Agreement (the
Lease) by and between J. A. CARDWELL, TRUSTEE (Lessor) and PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (Lessee), formerly known as Petro PSC, L.P. dated April 30, 1992, pertaining to the Building
located at 6080 Surety Drive, El Paso, Texas 79905, and more particularly described in the Lease. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Lease.



RECITALS:



WHEREAS, Section 3 of the Lease provides for a Term to expire on December 31, 2005; and



WHEREAS, Lessee has requested and Lessor has agreed to further extend said
Term as provided in this Amendment.



AGREEMENT:



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived and the
representations and warranties, conditions and promises contained in the Lease, as amended by this Amendment, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound
hereby, the parties hereby agree as follows:



|1. |  | The term of Lease is hereby extended to December 31, 2013. The rent for the extended term shall remain the same.
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. |  | The Lease, as amended by this Amendment, shall remain in full force and effect between the parties in accordance with its terms and conditions. All terms not otherwise defined
herein shall have the meaning subscribed thereto in the Lease.
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|LESSOR:                 |  | LESSEE:                                 
|----------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------
|                        | 
|                        |  | PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, L.P.            
|                        | 
|/s/  J.A. Cardwell, Sr. |  | By:    /s/  Edward Escudero             
|J. A. Cardwell, Trustee |  | Edward Escudero, Chief Financial Officer
News United States Air Force
 Leaders from 11 nations meet to discuss Arctic securityPublished June 9, 2015
                        
                        By 2nd Lt. Meredith Mulvihill
                        
                        
                        871st Air Expeditionary Public Affairs
                **REYKJAVIK, Iceland (AFNS) --**
                Military leaders from across Europe and North America met in Reykjavik to discuss security related issues within the Arctic Circle during the Arctic Security Forces Roundtable several weeks ago.Held annually since 2011, the ASFR is a multiday conference designed to promote regional understanding and enhance multilateral security operations within the Arctic area. This year's forum was hosted by the Icelandic Coast Guard, and focused on events and challenges within the Greenland and Norwegian Seas region.According to Maj. Gen. Randy Kee, one of the leaders of the ASFR, a big part of the conference is learning about potential issues that could result from increasing human activities in the Arctic, and how defense and civil authorities can work together to respond to them."This is an opportunity for us to come together as military professionals and focus on those issues where we bring the open hand of help," Kee said. "We can learn how we can bring military capabilities to bear that are meaningful in areas such as domain awareness, humanitarian assistance and disaster response."During the conference, representatives from seven nations with Arctic holdings and four observer nations listened to a variety of presentations from civil and industry leaders in the region. These culminated in a theoretical training exercise where attendees worked together to plan disaster response for a hypothetical volcanic eruption.According to Norwegian army Maj. Gen. Odin Johannessen, who co-led the conference with Kee, the ASFR allows both military and civilian participants to gain a greater understanding of the Arctic and their potential roles in it."The different actors (in the Arctic) all have different purposes," Johannessen said. "If all of these actors can work together, it will be a benefit for all of us."Iceland 



Artic Security Forces 



USAFE-AFAFRICA 



Reykjavik
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Robert Paul JOHNSON, II.

No. 2010-KK-2754.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 4, 2011.

In re Johnson II, Robert Paul; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 25241, 95875; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1720.

Denied.
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, B. James Rubin, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Tripos, Inc.;

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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.	The registrant'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 registrant and have:

	a)	designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, 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 registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

	c)	disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

	a)	all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

	b)	any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  May 10, 2005

 

     /s/ B. James Rubin
     B. James Rubin
|   | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended May 17, 2010 (the “Quarterly Report”) complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 780(d)); and |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|  Date: June 22, 2010           |  /s/ Andrew F. Puzder  |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                                                                                  |  Andrew F. Puzder           |
|                                                                                  |  Chief Executive Officer    |

----
Exhibit 10.2 -- Form of Waiver



 Exhibit 10.2 
 WAIVER 
 In consideration for the benefits I will receive as a result of my employer’s participation in
the United States Department of the Treasury’s TARP Capital Purchase Program, I hereby voluntarily waive any claim against the United States or my employer for any changes to my compensation or benefits that are required to comply with the
regulation issued by the Department of the Treasury as published in the Federal Register on October 20, 2008. 
 I acknowledge that this regulation may
require modification of the compensation, bonus, incentive and other benefit plans, arrangements, policies and agreements (including so-called “golden parachute” agreements) that I have with my employer or in which I participate as they
relate to the period the United States holds any equity or debt securities of my employer acquired through the TARP Capital Purchase Program. 
 This waiver
includes all claims I may have under the laws of the United States or any state related to the requirements imposed by the aforementioned regulation, including without limitation a claim for any compensation or other payments I would otherwise
receive, any challenge to the process by which this regulation was adopted and any tort or constitutional claim about the effect of these regulations on my employment relationship. 
  

					
			
	Date: _______________________, 2008	 		 	  
		 		 	Signature
			
	 	 		 	  
		 		 	Print Name
			
	 	 		 	  
		 		 	Title
#### Melvin BATISTE, Gina Batiste, Kyroneka Batiste, Keir Batiste, Shondrika Clayton, and Shondria Lovette v. Randall BROWN, Bayou Steel Corporation, Graftech International, Inc., Idealeletrodes, Danieli Corporation, Jerry Pitts, Timothy Postlewaite, Bryan Englade, Scot Gregory and Elton Davis.

No. 2012-C-0439.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 13, 2012.

*1250In re Batiste, Gina; Batiste, Keir; Batiste, Kyroneka; Batiste, Melvin et al.; Clayton, Shondrika; Lovette, Shondria;— Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of St. John, 40th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 51067; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. ll-CA-609.

Denied.
#### J. M. Wells et al. v. Ames Iron Works.

(No. 5374.)

Error from Caldwell County.

Nix, Storey & Storey, counsel for plaintiffs in error.

M. R. Stringfellow, counsel for defendant in error.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 296. *Citation; when without seal will not support judgment by default.*Defendant in error instituted this suit in the county court to recover from plaintiff in error Wells certain personal property, which property was seized under a writ of sequestration issued in said suit at the instance of defendant in error. Wells replevied said property, the other .plaintiffs in error being sureties upon his replevy bond. What purports to be a citation was issued in said suit and served upon the defendant Wells in due time, and a judgment by default was thereafter rendered against him and his said sureties on said replevy bond. The paper purporting to be a citation which was served upon Wells was not authenticated by the seal *365of the court. *Held:*It was not a valid citation, and service thereof did not warrant the judgment by default. [2 W. Con. Rep. § 503.]

May 14, 1887.

§ 297. *Appearance; what constitutes.*It is contended for defendant in error that plaintiff in error, Wells, cured this defective citation, and brought himself within the jurisdiction of the court by an appearance in said suit. The facts which are claimed to constitute such appearance are: that he executed said replevy bond; that he employed attorneys to defend said suit, and that said attorneys accepted service of a certain notice in said cause and waived the filing of certain record evidence to be used on the trial of said cause. *Held;*Article 1241, Revised Statutes, provides: “The defendant may in person, or by attorney, or by his duly authorized agent, enter an appearance in open court, and such appearance shall be noted by the judge upon his docket and entered in the minutes, and shall have the same force and effect as if citation had been duly issued and served as provided by law.” It is not pretended that such an appearance was entered in this suit. By article 1245, Revised Statutes, it is provided that no judgment shall, in any case, be rendered against any defendant, unless upon service or acceptance or waiver of process, or upon an appearance by the defendant as prescribed by the statute, except where otherwise expressly provided by law. There having been no such appearance as is prescribed by law, the defective citation was not cured, and the judgment by default was unauthorized.

Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit 10.4
 EXECUTION COPY
 AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO
SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT
 Amendment Agreement Company Purchaser
 RECITALS
  Certificate
  i.e.,
 i.e.,




---



##### 



Purchase and Sale Initial
Investment i.e., Announcement of Results
 Certificate of
Designation
        2




---



##### 



PURCHASER:
    
    BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL INC.By:

    /s/ G. Eric DavisName:
    G. Eric DavisTitle:
    VP, General CounselCOMPANY:
    
    LA JOLLA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANYBy:

    /s/ Deirdre Y. GillespieName:
    Deirdre Y. GillespieTitle:
    President and Chief Executive Officer
  3




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A




---



##### 



LA JOLLA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY
 CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATIONS
OF
SERIES B-1 CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK
  Corporation DGCL
  SERIES B-1 CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK
 Designation, Amount and Par Value Series B-1 Preferred Stock




---



##### 



Liquidation; Dissolution or Winding Up Senior Stock Common Stock pari passu pari passu Parity Stock
 Consolidation; Merger; Sale of Assets; Stock Splits; Consolidations, Etc.
 M&A Event




---



##### 



Mandatory Conversion Upon Termination of Development Agreement Series B-1 Conversion Rate i.e. Series B-1
Conversion Rate
 Optional Conversion
 Conversion Ratio
 Mechanics of Conversion




---



##### 



Adjustment for Common Stock Dividends, Distributions, Reclassification, Exchange and
Substitution
   Reservation of Stock Issuable Upon Conversion
 Cash and Property Dividends




---



##### 



No Voting Rights
 No Redemption
 Reacquired Shares
 Notices
 Headings
 Ranking
 Amendments
 nd of text. ignature page follows.




---



##### 



LA JOLLA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANYBy:Name:
    Deirdre Y. Gillespie, M.D.Title:
    President and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit. 22.1

                             Fisher Companies Inc.
                                  Subsidiaries



Subsidiary                                                State of Incorporation
----------                                                ----------------------

Fisher Broadcasting Inc.                                  Washington

Fisher Mills Inc.                                         Washington

Fisher Properties Inc.                                    Washington

Fisher Communications Inc. (1)                            Washington

Fisher Radio Regional Group Inc. (1)                      Washington

Sam Wylde Flour Co., Inc. (2)                             Washington

Valley Milling Co. (2)                                    Washington

Fisher Baking Supply Limited (2)                          Canada

Trotwood Inc. (3)                                         Washington

Fisher Mills L.L.C. (4)                                   Washington

Fisher Broadcasting - Georgia, L.L.C. (1)                 Delaware

Fisher Broadcasting - Fresno, L.L.C. (1)                  Delaware

_____________________________
(1) Wholly owned by Fisher Broadcasting Inc.
(2) Wholly owned by Fisher Mills Inc.
(3) Wholly owned by Fisher Properties Inc.
(4) Owned 99% by Fisher Mills Inc. and 1% by Fisher Companies Inc.
#### Douglas STEAD and Charlotte Bremermann v. Susan SWANNER, Chandra Sekhar Korrapati, Individually and as the Administrator of the Estate of Srinivas Korrapati a/k/a “Bobby” Korrapati, Kanaka Durga Korrapati, Srinivas Korrapati a/k/a “Bobby” Korrapati, and Sri Lakshmi Properties, LLC.

No. 2011-C-0335.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2011.

In re Swanner, Susan; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 654-944; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-CA-371.

Denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Douglas L. SNEED.

No. 2011-KO-0033.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 6, 2011.

*124In re Sneed, Douglas C; Sneed, Douglas Cody; Sneed, Douglas L.; Defendant (s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Vernon, 30th Judicial District Court Div. B, Nos. 74842, 75777, 75787; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Nos. 10-453,10-454,10-455.

Denied.
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-84,513-02
EX P ARTE JOHN ANTHONY VALENTI, Ap plicant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 2009CR0231-W3 IN THE 437 DISTRICT COURT FROMBEXAR COUNTY

T H
Per curiam . Y

eary, J. not participating.

O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Arti cl e 1 1
. 0 7 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y o u ng , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant pleade d guilty to two counts o f online solicitation of a minor and was sentenc ed to one hundred and eig hty day s’ imprisonment for
eac h count . He did not appe al his conviction.

1 This Court, in Ex parte Lo , held unconstitutional the online solicitation of a minor statute for which Applicant was convicted. Ex parte L o , 4 2 4 S
. W
. 3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Applicant
He ha s a third count, for which he r ece ived proba tion, that is notbeingchalleng ed with 1 this application.2

filed this habea s application based on the Lo decision and asks that his conviction be set aside. The State rec ommends that relief be grante d in this cause. We agree . Relief is g rante d. The judgme nts in counts two and three of Cause No. 2009CR0231 in the 437 District Court of Be x ar County is set aside and Applicant is rema nded to the cust o d y o f t he t h Sheriff of Be x ar County to answe r the char g es as set out in the indictment so that the indictment may be disposed of in acc ordanc e with this Court’s opinion in Ex parte Lo. The trial court shall issue any
nece ssary bench w arr ant within 10 day s after the mandate of this Court issues. Copi e s o f th is o p in io n s h a ll be sent to the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice–Corre ctional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: J une 22, 2016 Do not publish
#### STATE ex rel. George SQUARE v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-1708.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re Square, George; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of West Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 11-WCR-278.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.
In the

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Cause No. 14-14-00521-CR & 14-14-00522-CR

In the

Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District of Texas 

at Houston

GARY ISHMAEL BOLIN 

Appellant

v. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Appellee

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR 

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW 

Pursuant to Rules 68.2(c), 10.5(b) and 9.3(b) Appellant respectfully requests this 

Court to grant this motion for extension of time to file Appellant’s Petition for 

Discretionary Review, and offers the following facts in support of this request:

1. Appellant’s conviction was affirmed in the Court of Appeals for the 

Fourteenth District of Texas on March 19, 2015. No motion for rehearing 

was filed. 

2. Appellant’s Petition For Discretionary Review was due on April 20, 2015. 

3. No previous extension has been requested. The undersigned attorney is 

responsible for several other appeals and needed additional time to prepare 

a petition.

4. The undersigned respectfully requests an extension for 30 days until 

Wednesday, May 20, 2015, to file his Petition for Discretionary Review 

which will be filed under separate cover.

PD-0518-15 & PD-0519-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 5/4/2015 10:59:08 AM

Accepted 5/4/2015 3:38:14 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
2

Appellant respectfully prays this Honorable Court grant his motion for extension 

of time to file his petition for discretionary review.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Casey Garrett

Casey Garrett

1214 Heights Boulevard

Houston, Texas 77008

(713) 228-3800

Texas Bar No. 00787197
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing instrument has been served 

through the e-file system to the following recipient:

Harris County Office of the District Attorney

Appellate Division

1201 Franklin, Suite 600

Houston, Texas 77002

/s/ Casey Garrett

Casey Garrett

1214 Heights Boulevard

Houston, Texas 77008

(713) 228-3800

Texas Bar No. 00787197
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Scotty ROACH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-6837.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 26, 2000.

Decided Jan. 12, 2001.

*224Scotty Roach, pro se. John Warren Stone, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, NC, for appellee.

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Scotty Roach appeals the district court’s order declining to grant relief from Roach’s court-imposed restitution and denying Roach’s motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. Roach,*Nos. CR-93-122; CR-93-205 (M.D.N.C. June 2, 2000). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*