alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.1

                              COMMSCOPE, INC.

                               June 14, 2004

The Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd.
6-1, Marunouchi 2-chome
Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo 100
Japan

Dear Sirs,

We refer to the Amended and Restated Memorandum of Understanding dated as
of November 15, 2001, as amended by Amendments No. 1 and No. 2 thereto, by
and between The Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd. ("Furukawa") and CommScope
Optical Technologies, Inc. (as assignee of CommScope, Inc. ("CommScope"))
(the "MOU"); to the Stockholders Agreement dated as of October 9, 2002 by
and between Commscope and Furukawa (the "Stockholders Agreement"); and to
the Registration Rights Agreement dated as of October 9, 2002 by and
between CommScope and Furukawa (the "Registration Rights Agreement").

Effective as of the closing of the transactions contemplated by Section 5.6
of the MOU, the aforementioned Stockholders Agreement and Registration
Rights Agreement shall terminate. CommScope agrees not to exercise the Call
Right set forth in Section 6.1 of the Stockholders Agreement from the date
hereof.

Please acknowledge your agreement to the foregoing by executing where
indicated below.

Yours sincerely,

CommScope, Inc.

By:   /s/ Frank B. Wyatt, II                    Acknowledged and agreed by:
      ----------------------
      Senior Vice President
                                                The Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd.

                                                By:/s/ Hiroshi Ishihara
                                                   ----------------------------
                                                   Name: Hiroshi Ishihara
                                                   Title: President, CEO & COO
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001049530
<NAME> ACME INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, LLC
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             938
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,607
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (598)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,210
<PP&E>                                          21,261
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,842)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 287,262
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,231
<BONDS>                                        192,734
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   287,262
<SALES>                                         11,123
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,123
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,417
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,822
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    43
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,830
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,116)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       745
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,371)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,371)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Ming Hsieh, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Cogent, 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 30,
2009



/S/ MING HSIEHMing Hsieh Chief Executive Officer
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1257 CAF 13-00988**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF DELIA S., JESUS S. AND SKYLETT A. ------------------------------------------ MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT;
DESIREE S., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

THE ABBATOY LAW FIRM, PLLC, ROCHESTER (DAVID M. ABBATOY, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
JOSEPH T. JARZEMBEK, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
DAVID C. SCHOPP, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (CHARLES D. HALVORSEN OF COUNSEL).
SHARON ANSCOMBE OSGOOD, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, BUFFALO.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Sharon M. LoVallo, J.), entered May 13, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order terminated respondent’s parental rights with respect to the subject children.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal insofar as it concerns respondent’s older child is unanimously dismissed and the order is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights with respect to the subject children on the ground of mental illness. We dismiss as moot the appeal from the order insofar as it concerns the mother’s older child because she has attained the age of majority ( see Matter of Anthony M. , 56 AD3d 1124, 1124, lv denied 12 NY3d 702). Contrary to the mother’s contention, petitioner met its burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that the mother is “presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness . . . , to provide proper and adequate care for” the remaining subject children (Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [c]; see § 384-b [6] [a]; Matter of Christopher B., Jr. [Christopher B., Sr.] , 104 AD3d 1188, 1188). The testimony of petitioner’s witnesses, including a psychologist, “established that the [mother] was so disturbed in [her] behavior, feeling, thinking and judgment that, if the [remaining subject children] were returned to [her] custody, [they] would be in danger of becoming” neglected**-2- 1257 CAF 13-00988** 
children ( Christopher B., Jr. , 104 AD3d at 1188; see § 384-b [6] [a]).

Entered: November 21, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of Xenonics Holdings, Inc (the “Company”) hereby certifies that, to the best ofhis knowledge:     (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended September30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated:  December 14, 2006 /s/  Richard J. Naughton        Richard J. Naughton        Chief Executive Officer
(Hereinafter referred to as the Agreement)
  (Hereinafter referred to as the Company)
  (Hereinafter referred to as the Reinsurer)




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 TOWER INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORKBy:

/s/
Francis M. ColalucciName:
    Francis M. ColalucciTitle:
    SVP,
Treasurer, CFODate:
    1/29/09TOWER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANYBy:

/s/
Francis M. ColalucciName:
    Francis M. ColalucciTitle:
    SVP,
Treasurer, CFODate:
    1/29/09PRESERVER INSURANCE COMPANYBy:

/s/
Patrick J. HaveronName:
    Patrick
J. HaveronTitle:

PresidentDate:
    1/29/09NORTH EAST INSURANCE COMPANYBy:

/s/
Patrick J. HaveronName:
    Patrick
J. HaveronTitle:
    CEODate:
    1/29/09MOUNTAIN VALLEY INDEMNITY COMPANYBy:

/s/
Patrick J. HaveronName:
    Patrick
J. HaveronTitle:

PresidentDate:
    1/29/09CASTLEPOINT REINSURANCE COMPANY, LTDBy:

/s/
Joel WeinerName:
    Joel WeinerTitle:
    SVP
& CFODate:
    1/29/09CASTLEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANYBy:

/s/
Robert W. HedgesName:
    Robert W. HedgesTitle:

Managing
Vice PresidentDate:
    1/29/09
#### A. Roberts *v.*C. Ketchen.

Payment — Application of Payment as Between Particular Debts — Burden of Proof to Show that Another Debt Existed.

Where a payment has been proven, it is incumbent on the plaintiff to show by proof that he had another debt against the defendant to which it was. applied.

APPEAL PROM HENRY CIRCUIT COURT.

January 5, 1871.

*Barbour, for appellant.*

*Montfort, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

As early as 30th of October, 1860, appellee sent to decedent Roberts a statement of the amount of the note, interest, and exchange, with a request that he would make an acceptance payable at the branch of the Bank of Kentucky, in Frankfort, and it is proved by Smith that he paid to appellee for decedent about $160 on an acceptance of the latter to the former, and took his receipt for the amount paid, the receipt is lost, and the time and amount paid are not precisely remembered by the witness but he fixes them to correspond substantially with the amount of the note sued on, and the date when the acceptance would mature.

Having proved this payment, if it was not to be applied to this debt, it was incumbent on appellee to show by proof that he had another debt against decedent to which it was applied, and this he has wholly failed to do. Nor does he account for his failure to sue the administrator of decedent after he dismissed his first suit on this note, if he intended again to make an effort to collect the same, where upon his first effort by suit his attorneys were satified that the proof of payment was so strong as to compel a jury to find against him. We cannot therefore concur in opinion with the circuit court, but are constrained from the evidence to conclude that the note had been paid off by decedent. Wherefore the judgment is *reversed,*and the cause is remanded with directions to dismiss the petition absolutely.
**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 Annual Report of Macquarie Infrastructure Company Trust
      and
      Macquarie Infrastructure Company LLC (the “registrant”) on Form 10-K for the
      year ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “report”), we, Peter Stokes and Francis T.
      Joyce, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of
      the
      registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and





(2)    The
      information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the
      registrant.





Date: March 1, 2007/s/
                    Peter
                    StokesPeter
                    StokesChief Executive Officer


/s/
                  Francis T.
                  JoyceFrancis
                  T. JoyceChief Financial Officer




***A
      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
      document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
      that
      appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
      required by Section 906, has been provided to Macquarie Infrastructure
      Company LLC and will be retained by Macquarie Infrastructure Company LLC and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.***
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: 

REVISION OF EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF RULES 4001-4016 

THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES 

OF JUDICIAL 

ADMINISTRATION ON COURT 

REPORTING AND 

TRANSCRIPTS

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 446

JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION

DOCKET

AMENDED ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 12th day of May, 2015, it is ORDERED pursuant to Article V,

Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania that the June 1, 2015 effective date of 

Rules 4001-4016 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration, governing court 

reporting and transcripts, and the June 1, 2015 rescission date of Rules 5000.1-5000.13 

of the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration, are revised to January 1, 2017.

See Order No. 436 Judicial Administration Docket (December 4, 2014). 

This ORDER shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and 

shall be effective immediately.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6311

FILIBERTO FELICIANO , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. CAPTAIN J. COX, Albemarle District Jail; OFFICER BROOKS, Albemarle District Jail; P.A. PETER WOGLOM, Albemarle District Jail , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:15

- ct

- 03254

- FL )

Submitted : July 26, 2018 Decided: July 31, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD , Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Filiberto Feliciano , Appellant Pro Se. Sonny Sade Haynes , WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP , Winston

- Salem, North Carolina; Jay C. Salsman , HARRIS, CREECH, WARD & BLACKERBY , New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Filiberto Feliciano appeals the district court’s or der denying relief on his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Feliciano v.
Cox , No. 5:15

- ct

- 03254

- FL (E.D.N.C. filed Mar. 20 & entered Mar. 21, 2018) . 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
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 179 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                          July 9, 1997.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 1775) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1998 for 
intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States 
Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence 
Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes. The first 
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to 
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute recommended by the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be considered by title rather than by section. Each title shall 
be considered as read. Points of order against the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI or clause 
5(a) or clause 5(b) of rule XXI are waived. No amendments to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order unless printed in the 
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of 
rule XXIII. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O . 09

- 22

- 00409

- CV

__________________ GOOD DEAL TRUCKING, INC. AND THEODORE PUT M A N , Appellant s
V.
MARY GERAC , Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 60th District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. B

- 208,118

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION
On November 4, 20 22 , Good Deal Trucking, Inc. and Theodore Put m a n filed a notice of appeal from an order on a m ot i o n for sanctions

. 1 We questioned whether
the trial co urt had signed a final judgment for an order that is appealable as an accelerated appeal. Neither party responded to this Court’s warning that we would

1 This order was the subject of a separate original proceeding or a writ of mandamus. See In re Putman , No. 09

- 22

- 00358

- CV, 2022 WL 174 91736 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont Dec. 8, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).2 dismiss the appeal unless our jurisdiction over the appeal was established. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f)

. APPEAL DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on January 11, 2023 Opinion Delivered January 12, 2023 Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
Denied and Opinion Filed November 4, 2016 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-01307-CV 

IN RE BARRY BRAY, AS NEXT FRIEND FOR JOHN DOE, A MINOR, Relator 

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-014201 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Lang, Brown, and Stoddart 

Opinion by Justice Brown 

Before the Court are relator’s November 4, 2016 petition for writ of mandamus and 

motion for expedited consideration or interim relief. The facts and issues are well known to the 

parties, so we need not recount them herein. 

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clearly 

abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 

148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Based on the record before us, we 

conclude relators have not shown they are entitled to the relief requested. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

52.8(a); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). 

 
 –2– 

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and we deny the motion as 

moot. 

 

161307F.P05 

/Ada Brown/ 

ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

CAMELBAK PRODUCTS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED 

ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”,

Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-03952

Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert

SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, a judgment was entered in the above action on September 30, 2020 [41] in 

favor of Plaintiffs and against the Defendants Identified in Amended Schedule A. Plaintiffs

acknowledge payment of an agreed upon damages amount, costs, and interest and desires to release 

this judgment and hereby fully and completely satisfy the same as to the following Defendants:

NO. DEFENDANT

214 ae118e

THEREFORE, full and complete satisfaction of said judgment as to above identified 

Defendants is hereby acknowledged, and the Clerk of the Court is hereby authorized and directed 

to make an entry of the full and complete satisfaction on the docket of said judgment.

Case: 1:20-cv-03952 Document #: 56 Filed: 12/21/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:9436
Dated: December 18, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

Yanling Jiang (Bar No. 6309336) 

JianglP LLC 

3 l 2-675-6297 

l l l West Jackson BLVD STE 1700

Chicago, IL 60604 

Telephone: 312-675-6297 

Email: yanling@jiangip.com 

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF 

Subscribed and sworn before me by Yanling Jiang, on this 18th day of December, 2020. 

Given under by hand and notarial seal. 

MICHAEL SEVERT 

Official Seal 

1 Notary Public • State of Illinois 

, My Commis sion Expires Sep 11, 2023 

Notary Public 

State of :tl ---------

County of 

Case: 1:20-cv-03952 Document #: 56 Filed: 12/21/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:9437
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001049129
<NAME>                        HLM DESIGN

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Apr-27-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                 Apr-29-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Oct-27-2000
<CASH>                                         84,839
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  12,981,709
<ALLOWANCES>                                   773,718
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               22,990,399
<PP&E>                                         5,981,455
<DEPRECIATION>                                 3,779,584
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 38,320,210
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          14,878,535
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2,416
<OTHER-SE>                                     10,561,936
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   38,320,210
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               31,939,756
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               29,941,036
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             920,295
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,078,425
<INCOME-TAX>                                   571,543
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            506,882
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   506,882
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.21


</TABLE>