alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
F-2/A










Exhibit 4.3  



ELEVENTH AMENDMENT  

TO THE FACILITY
AGREEMENT  



Made
and entered into on this 27th day of October, 2005, by and between: 




	  	 (1)  	TOWER
SEMICONDUCTOR LTD. (“the Borrower”)  






	 	
and 






	  	 (2)  	BANK
LEUMI LE-ISRAEL B.M.  and  BANK HAPOALIM B.M.(“the Banks”)  








	WHEREAS:  		the
Borrower,  on the one hand, and the Banks,  on the other hand, are parties to a
                     Facility  Agreement dated  January 18,  2001, as amended pursuant to
a letter dated                      January 29,  2001,  a Second  Amendment  dated
 January 10,  2002,  a letter  dated                      March 7,  2002, a letter dated
April 29,  2002, a letter dated September 18,  2002,                      as amended on
October 22,  2002, a letter dated June 10,  2003, a Seventh Amendment
                     dated November 11,  2003, a letter dated January 30,  2005, a Ninth
Amendment dated                      July 24,  2005  and a  Tenth  Amendment  dated
 September 29,  2005  (the  Facility                      Agreement, as amended as
aforesaid, hereinafter “the Facility Agreement”); and 






	WHEREAS:  		following
the Borrower's  request,  the Borrower and the Banks have agreed to amend
                     the Facility Agreement in the manner set out below (“this Eleventh
Amendment”), 






NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 



	1.  	The
Facility  Agreement  is hereby  amended by deleting the  reference to  "October 31,
 2005" in        clause 16.36.1.1 and substituting therefor, "November 30, 2005".






	2.  	The
 Facility  Agreement  is hereby  amended  as  expressly  set out in this  Eleventh
 Amendment        above.  This  Eleventh  Amendment  shall be read  together  with the
 Facility  Agreement  as one        agreement  and, save as expressly  amended by this
 Eleventh  Amendment,  the Facility  Agreement        shall remain unaltered and in full
force and effect.














IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have
signed this Eleventh Amendment on the date first mentioned above.  



for:    TOWER SEMICONDUCTOR LTD.



By:       ______________________________



Title:   ______________________________






	for:    BANK LEUMI LE-ISRAEL B.M.     


By:       ______________________________


Title:  ______________________________
	for:    BANK HAPOALIM B.M.


By:       ______________________


Title:  ______________________





- 2 -
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         7098631
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 18727219
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     927046
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              28346702
<PP&E>                                       695123427
<DEPRECIATION>                               270511094
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               461357032
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         13303629
<BONDS>                                        5000000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          2213090
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   235032749
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 461357032
<SALES>                                       39007410
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              39473680
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              10210218
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              230775
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               13522673
<INCOME-TAX>                                   5815000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            7707673
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   7707673
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.35
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ABEL ALEJO,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 365 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of April, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4363 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4363

      To facilitate self-help housing homeownership opportunities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 13, 2004

Mr. Green of Wisconsin (for himself, Mr. Ford, Mr. Ney, Mr. Kennedy of 
 Minnesota, and Mr. Lucas of Kentucky) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To facilitate self-help housing homeownership opportunities.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Helping Hands for Homeownership Act 
of 2004''.

SEC. 2. ASSISTANCE FOR SELF-HELP HOUSING PROVIDERS.

    Paragraph (1) of section 11(b) of the Housing Opportunity Program 
Extension Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 12805 note) is amended by striking 
``dwelling'' and inserting ``dwellings''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         35,910 
<SECURITIES>                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                 226,567 
<ALLOWANCES>                                   14,699 
<INVENTORY>                                   153,610 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              519,542       
<PP&E>                                      3,572,070      
<DEPRECIATION>                              1,301,317    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              3,161,642      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         673,787    
<BONDS>                                     1,054,144  
<COMMON>                                          672 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         173,760 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<OTHER-SE>                                    731,197       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                3,161,642         
<SALES>                                             0          
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            1,395,650          
<CGS>                                               0          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               1,253,204          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (3,449)       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               16,850      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             57,105       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                92,344       
<INCOME-TAX>                                   21,486      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            70,858      
<DISCONTINUED>                                 37,771  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0      
<CHANGES>                                           0  
<NET-INCOME>                                  108,629 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    1.63 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0 
        

</TABLE>
10452.

#### White *et al. v.*Stallings.

Decided November 4, 1919.

Complaint; from Monroe superior court—Judge Searcy. February 10, 1919.

Stallings sued White and Manning on a promissory note for the purchase price of a mare. The defendants filed answers in which they admitted the execution of the note but denied indebtedness thereon, and alleged that “plaintiff sold said note to S. Silver, who afterwards brought trover suit in the city court of Barnesville against-and recovered a judgment for the amount of said note, which judgment has been paid off and settled in full.” Manning alleged also that “while his name appears on said note as joint maker, he had no connection with said transaction, and thought he signed said note only as a witness, but through an oversight signed the wrong line, which makes him appear as joint maker.” The defendants offered as an amendment a certified copy of a trover suit of S. Silver against Warren Jenkins, and of a judgment for the plaintiff therein, in the city court of Barnes-ville, in which the property sued for was described as in the above-*315mentioned note,—one bay mare six years old and weighing about 800 pounds. The court, on motion of the plaintiff’s counsel, on the ground that no legal defense was set forth, struck the answers; the court then directed a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendants excepted.

*314Bloodworth, J.

The record in this case does not show that the court erred either in striking the plea of the defendants or in thereafter directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.*

*315
      *B. E. Manry, A. M. Zellner,*for plaintiffs in error.

*James M. Smith,*contra.
<PAGE>   1
               [ASSOCIATES FIRST CAPITAL CORPORATION LETTERHEAD]

                                                                      EXHIBIT 5

                                 June 2, 1998


Associates First Capital Corporation
250 E. Carpenter Freeway
Irving, TX 75062-2729

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     I am Vice President and Assistant General Counsel of Associates First 
Capital Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company") and I have advised
the Company in connection with the registration, pursuant to a Registration
Statement (the Registration Statement) on Form S-3 being filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Act"), to be offered from time to time by the Company of up to $1,000,000,000
of the Company's debt securities ("Debt Securities"), warrants to purchase Debt
Securities, preferred stock ("Preferred Stock"), rights to purchase Preferred
Stock, Class A Common Stock (the "Common Stock") and warrants to purchase
Common Stock, (collectively, the "Offered Securities"), on the terms to be
determined at the time of the offering.

     In connection with the filing of the Registration Statement, you have
requested my opinion concerning certain corporate matters.

     When the terms of any class or series of the Offered Securities have been
authorized by appropriate action of the Company and have been issued and sold,
and payment received for such Offered Securities, as described in the 
Registration Statement, the Prospectus and the applicable Prospectus Supplement
and, with respect to the Debt Securities, such Debt Securities have been duly
executed, authenticated and delivered in accordance with the applicable
indenture or supplemental indenture, then (i) the Offered Securities will be
legally issued and, with respect to shares of Common Stock and Preferred Stock,
fully paid and nonassessable and (ii) the Debt Securities will be validly
authorized and issued and binding obligations of the Company.

     I hereby consent that the foregoing opinion may be filed as an exhibit to
the above referenced Registration Statement. I further consent to the use of my
name in the Registration Statement and the Prospectus related thereto.

     By his signature below, Frederic C. Liskow hereby consents to the use of
his name in the Registration Statement and the Prospectus related thereto.

                                        Very truly yours,


                                        /s/ TIMOTHY M. HAYES
                                        -----------------------------
                                            Timothy M. Hayes
                                            Assistant General Counsel

Consent


/s/ FREDERIC C. LISKOW
-----------------------------
    Frederic C. Liskow
    Assistant General Counsel
GMP No. 4

ADJUSTING THE OPTICAL SCALE ON A SINGLE PAN MECHANICAL BALANCE

When a single pan balance is used for comparing unknown weights to

reference standards, it is desirable to adjust the optical scale so that all
readings obtained in the intercomparison will be above zero. For the double
substitution weighing design, the readings should begin in the first quarter of

the

optical scale. For a modified substitution, it is most useful to set the

optical scale at its midpoint. An upscale reading can be obtained by several
methods depending upon the features of the balance and the value of the weights
being used in the intercomparison.

I.

Il.

Itt.

Iv.

Zero-adjust knob: If the coarse zero adjustment has sufficient range, the
optical scale reading can be increased or decreased to obtain the desired
reading. The fine zero adjustment is used to obtain the final reading.

Tare-adjustment knob: If the balance has a tare adjustment feature, it can
be used easily to reduce the optical scale reading. The tare adjustment
also can be used effectively for weights that would normally give readings
near zero when the optical scale starts at zero. This is accomplished by
dialing in built-in weights such that the optical scale reading is at the
maximum. The tare adjustments can then be used to reduce the reading on
the optical scale.

Small weights: If the weights under test would normally give readings
near zero, small weights can be placed on the balance pan to increase the
reading on the optical scale. These weights must remain on the pan
throughout the intercomparison.

Small weights can be used in combination with the zero and tare adjustments
to obtain the desired setting.

Internal zero adjustment: In some cases, the balance may be used to test
weights that would normally give readings at the maximum range of the
optical scale with the maximum setting of the built-in weights. An example
of this would be the testing of a 1-kg weight on the Mettler CB 1000
balance. In this case there is no additional range on the optical scale to
permit the performance of the sensitivity. test portion of the weighing
design. Under this condition, a sufficient amount of optical scale range
can be obtained by adjusting the zero adjustment balance ball that is
inside the balance. This adjustment would then permit the external zero
adjust knobs to be used to obtain the final setting.

Once the desired optical scale setting has been obtained and the

intercomparison has begun, no further adjustments should be made until the
intercomparison has been completed.

GMP 4-1
H. R. 4327

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 7450 Natural

Bridge Road in St. Louis, Missouri, as the ‘‘Vitilas ‘Veto’ Reid Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

7450 Natural Bridge Road in St. Louis, Missouri, shall be known

and designated as the ‘‘Vitilas ‘Veto’ Reid Post Office Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

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

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Vitilas

‘Veto’ Reid Post Office Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-50044 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus BERNARD LEE MCDOWELL, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-92-CR-111-2
- - - - - - - - - - June 29, 1995 Before JONES, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM * Bernard Lee McDowell's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED. McDowell has not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for the production of grand jury materials because he has not shown a "particularized need" for the materials that outweighs the policy of secrecy. See United States v. Miramontez , 995 F.2d 56, 59 (5th Cir. 1993). On appeal, McDowell can present no legal points arguable onNo. 95-50044 -2- their merits, and the appeal from the denial of his motion is frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. Rule 42.2.
Exhibit 4.36


 





 


1 June 2005


 


 


Vodafone International Holdings B.V.


15th Floor


Rivium Quadrant 173-177


2909 LC CAPELLE AAN DEN IJSSEL


The Netherlands


 


Dear Sirs,


 


Amendment to USD
303,062,447.00 Loan Agreement, dated 20 May 2005, between Mobifon Holdings
B.V. (the “Borrower”) and Vodafone International Holdings B.V. (the “Lender”)
(the “Facility”).


 


We hereby request you to agree
to the following change to the terms of the above Facility with effect from 2 June 2005:


 


 


Article 2 The
Principal and Interest


 


The
currency denomination of this loan facility shall be changed to Euro at a rate
of USD/EUR 1.2263.  The facility
amount shall therefore be € 247,135,649.51


 


The interest rate charged on
amounts drawn under this facility shall be changed from 8% to 6.86% from 2 June 2005.


 


Please signify your acceptance of this
amendment by signing where indicated below.


 


 


	
  Signed by

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  for and on behalf of

  	
   

  
	
  MOBIFON HOLDINGS B.V.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Signed by

  	
   

  
	
  for and on behalf of

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  VODAFONE INTERNATIONAL
  HOLDINGS B.V.

  	
   

  



 


 


Mobifon Holdings B.V.


Rivium Quadrant 173-177


2909 LC Capelle aan den IJssel


 


1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

August 6, 2009 

0720 

Order 

 

August 6, 2009 

138611 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138611 

 COA: 276208 

Chippewa CC: 06-008216-FH 

AUBREY JILES STANLEY, JR., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 12, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

January 7, 2021

No. 04

- 20

- 00147

- CV

Clyde E. KEBODEAUX

, Appellant

v.

Patricia KEBODEAUX

, Appellee

From the 224th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 00629 Honorable Laura Salinas , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s unopposed motion to file an amended brief is granted.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court o n this 7th day of January, 2021

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz , Clerk of Court
Exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATIONSI, Pamela G. Boone, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Synergetics USA, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained in SEC Release34-47986];(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee 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 internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: December 8, 2006              /s/ Pamela G. Boone   Pamela G. Boone   Executive Vice President, Chief Financial