alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT  10.40

     [DYNEX  CAPITAL,  INC.  LETTERHEAD]


June  30,  1998


Mr.  William  O.  Winsauer                      Mr.  Adrian  Katz
Chairman  &  CEO                                Vice  Chairman  and  COO
AutoBond  Acceptance  Corporation               AutoBond  Acceptance Corporation
100  Congress  Avenue                           100  Congress  Avenue
Austin,  TX  78701                              Austin,  TX  78701

Mr.  John  S.  Winsauer
Director  &  Secretary
AutoBond  Acceptance  Corporation
100  Congress  Avenue
Austin,  TX  78701

Gentlemen:

Pursuant  to  our discussions this morning outlined below are the adjusted terms
relating  to  the  warehouse  financing  agreements  between AutoBond Acceptance
Corporation  ("AutoBond")  and Dynex Capital, Inc. ("Dynex").  The modifications
to  the  financing  terms  outlined below shall apply retroactively to all prior
advances.

1.     Advance  rate  on all financed contracts lowered from 105% to 104% of the
principal  balance  of  all  contracts  financed.

2.     Such  financing  shall be divided between the Class A and Class B Funding
Notes  as  follows:
     Class  A     94%  of  the  balance  of  the  contracts  financed
Class  B     10%  of  the  balance  of  the  contracts  financed

3.     The  Interest  rate on the Class A shall be lowered from 200 basis points
over  the  three  year  treasury  note  to  190 basis points over the three year
treasury  note.

4.     Dynex's  funding  obligations  in any single month from July 1998 through
May 1999 (exclusive of loans at other warehouse lenders) shall be increased from
$20  million  to  $25  million.


Please  acknowledge  your  agreement  to  these modified terms by signing below.

Sincerely,


/s/  William  H.  West
----------------------
William  H.  West,  Jr.,  CPA
Executive  Vice  President

AGREED  AND  ACKNOWLEDGED


/s/  William  O. Winsauer          /s/ John S. Winsauer          /s/ Adrian Katz
-------------------------          --------------------          ---------------
William  O.  Winsauer               John  S.  Winsauer               Adrian Katz

<PAGE>
exv10w32wp






Exhibit 10.32P




Attachment B to Letter Agreement 6-1162-AKP-110R3 (Model 777)

MADP Rights Aircraft Delivery Months and Exercise Dates




[CONFIDENTIAL
PORTION OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO A REQUEST
FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT]



					
	 	 	 	 	 
	PA No. 1980
	 	SA No. 20
	 	Page 1 of 1






 








 





Attachment C to Letter Agreement 6-1162-AKP-110R3 (Model 777)

QADP Rights Aircraft Delivery Quarters and Exercise Dates




[CONFIDENTIAL
PORTION OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO A REQUEST
FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT]



					
	 	 	 	 	 
	PA No. 1980
	 	SA No. 20
	 	Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
           AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, Paul G. Vanderhoven, as Senior Vice President - Finance and Chief
Financial Officer of Sterling Chemicals, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to my knowledge:

         (1) the accompanying Form 10-Q/A report of the Company for the period
ending December 31, 2002, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (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
Company.

Dated:  May 12, 2003

                                        /s/ Paul G. Vanderhoven
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Paul G. Vanderhoven,
                                        Senior Vice President - Finance and
                                        Chief Financial Officer of the Company



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | Commercial Mortgage Servicing

D1086-120, 12th Floor

550 South Tryon Street

Charlotte, NC 28202

1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 2013, by and among GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II, as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer and Certificate Administrator, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer, Situs Holdings, LLC, as Operating Advisor and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through GSMS Certificates Series 2013-GCJ12 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 10.07 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 4th day of March 2016.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|-----------------------|------------------------------------|
#### Macaulay *v.*White Sewing Machine Co. and others.*

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

December 14, 1881.)

1. Letters Patent — Violation of Injunction.

Where defendant rendered itself amenable to the jurisdiction of the court by appearing in the action, and was enjoined from manufacturing or selling articles infringing upon complainant’s patent, *held,*that the injunction was violated by the sale of such articles *outside*of the territorial jurisdiction of the court, whether they were sent within such jurisdiction or not.

In Equity.

*F. H. Betts,*for plaintiff.

*S. A. Duncan*and *S. J. Gordon,*for defendants.

*

Reported by S. Nelson White, Esq., of the New York bar.

Blatchford, C. J.

The injunction was served on Mr. Baylor and on the company. Although it was not served on Mr. White personally, he knew of its service. He, as president of the company, directed the doing of what the company did in violating the injunction. He did not intend to have the injunction violated; hut it was violated by the company by selling machines at Cleveland and sending them from there to purchasers. Whether they were sent by it within the territorial jurisdiction of this court or not, the company made itself amenable to the jurisdiction of tfyis court by appearing in this suit. The advice that it was no violation of the injunction for the company to sell machines at Cleveland so long as such machines were not sent by it within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, was erroneous advice. Moreover, some of the machines so sold were sent by the company to. places within this district, although Mr. White thought that this district comprised only the city of New York. Mr. White acted for the company. I do not think he ought to he punished personally. But the company must pay a fine of $250, which will go to the plaintiff towards his expenses and counsel fees about this motion. The profits and damages from the infringement involved in the violation will remain to be accounted for in the suit. Mr. Baylor did n.ot violate the injunction.
Dismissed and Opinion Filed December 7, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 20

- 00849

- CV

DSM MANAGEMENT GROUP INC. , Appellant

V.
CULINAIRE INTERNATIONAL, INC. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 95th District Court Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 20

- 07194

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Partida

- Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Evans

Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III
Stating the parties ha ve resolved the claims between them, appellant has filed

a motion to dismiss the appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1 (a).

200849f.p05 /Bill Pedersen, III// BILL PEDERSEN, III
JUSTICE– 2

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

DSM MANAGEMENT GROUP INC., Appellant

No. 05

- 20

- 00849

- CV V.

CULINAIRE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 95th District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 20

- 071 94. Opinion delivered by Justice Pedersen, III. Justices Partida

Kipness and Evans participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Subject to any agreement between the parties, we ORDER that appellee Culinaire International, Inc. recover its costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant DSM Management Group Inc.

Judgment entered this day 7 th of December, 2020.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

ALEJANDRO ALEX INCERA, AKA 

Alexander Jiminez-Incera, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-10335 

D.C. No. 

2:18-cr-00169-JCM-NJK-2 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 15, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Alejandro Alex Incera appeals from the district court’s order denying his 

motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Incera contends that the district court should have granted his motion 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 27 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-10335 

because his history of Guillain-Barre syndrome (“GBS”), in combination with his 

other medical conditions and his mother’s recent cancer diagnosis, constitute an 

extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release. The district court 

did not abuse its discretion in finding otherwise. See United States v. Aruda, 993 

F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021). As the court explained, Incera’s history of GBS did 

not justify his refusal to be vaccinated because the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention recommends vaccination for those who have had GBS. Moreover, the 

record does not support Incera’s assertion that he has other medical issues, such as 

asthma. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the 

developments with Incera’s mother did not constitute an extraordinary and 

compelling reason to grant relief.

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1245
MARTIN FRANCISCO SALAZAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SPENCER ABRAHAM, Secretary of the Department of Energy, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-01-3209-1-23) Submitted: April 17, 2003 Decided: April 22, 2003 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Martin Francisco Salazar, Appellant Pro Se. Terri Hearn Bailey, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Martin Francisco Salazar appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to compel and granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Salazar v. Abraham , No. CA-01-3209-1-23 (D.S.C. filed Feb. 4, 2003; entered Feb. 5, 2003). 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
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MATTHEW A. FLASH

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee.

No. 4D2022

- 1484

[ December 7, 2023 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County; Hon. Peter Holden, Judge; L.T. Case No.

19013757CF10A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Narine N. Austin, Assistant

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke R. Napodano,

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

G ROSS

, G ERBER and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 32.1

        Certification under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Henry E.
Gemino, as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of Profile
Technologies, Inc., hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the "Quarterly Report") fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Profile Technologies, Inc.


Date:  May 15, 2008                              /s/ Henry E. Gemino
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Henry E. Gemino
                                                 Chief Executive Officer and
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
No. 14-14-01010-CR

In the 

Court of Appeals 

For the 

Fourteenth District of Texas 

At Houston 



No. 1448705

In the 189th Judicial District Court 

Of Harris County, Texas 



EX PARTE ANTONIO McGUIRE, Appellant 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee



STATE’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF 



TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: 

 THE STATE OF TEXAS, pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 2 & 10.5, moves for 

an extension of time in which to file its appellate brief and in its motion, would 

show the Court the following: 

1. The appellant was charged with two felony offenses, tampering with 

evidence and possession of a controlled substance. The indictment 

included enhancement paragraphs alleging appellant had been twice 

previously convicted of aggravated assault. After a hearing, the trial court 

denied appellant’s writ of habeas corpus requesting a reduction in bail. 

Appellant filed notice of appeal. 

ACCEPTED

14-14-01010-cr

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

3/11/2015 10:49:46 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 3/11/2015 10:49:46 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
2. The State’s brief is due March 11, 2015. The State hereby requests an

extension for the filing of the State’s brief until April 11, 2015. 

3. The following facts are relied upon to show good cause for an extension

of time to allow the State to file its brief:

The State has been working on and has filed the following briefs in the last 

thirty days.

Ronald Robinson v. The State of Texas 

1-14-006560-CR

State’s Brief filed February 11, 2014

Artivious Deon Hollins v. The State of Texas 

No. 1-14-00744-CR

State’s Brief filed March 4, 2015

Allison Leigh Campbell

No. 1-14-00807-CR

State’s Brief filed March 11, 2015

Furthermore, the undersigned attorney has been assigned the following 

briefs in addition to the brief in this cause number.

Kanivious Dorsey

1-14-00685-CR

State’s Brief due March 13, 2015

Phaoc Le Hung

14-14-00043-CR

State’s Brief due March 27, 2015

Christopher Jackson

14-14-00472-CR

State’s Brief due March 27, 2015

4. This is the State’s first request for an extension of time to file its brief. 
WHEREFORE, the State prays that this Court will grant the requested 

extension.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Kimberly Stelter

KIMBERLY STELTER

Assistant District Attorney

Harris County, Texas

1201 Franklin, Suite 600

Houston, Texas 77002-1923

(713) 755-5826

Stelter_Kimberly@dao.hctx.net

TBC No. 19141400

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing instrument will be served by 

efile.txcourts.gov to:

Randall J. Ayers

Attorney at Law

P.O. Box 1569

Houston, Texas 77251 

rjayerslaw@comcast.net

/s/ Kimberly Stelter

KIMBERLY STELTER

Assistant District Attorney

Harris County, Texas

1201 Franklin, Suite 600

Houston, Texas 77002-1923

(713) 755-5826

Date: March 11, 2015
**Exhibit 11**

**STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS**

Basic and diluted earnings per common shareof $.09 for the three months ended September 30, 2006 were calculated by dividing net income of $254,000 for the period July 1, 2006 to September 30, 2006 by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding of 2,913,976.

Basic and diluted earnings per common share of $0.33 for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 were calculated by dividing netincome of $957,000 for the period January 1, 2006 to September 30, 2006 by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding of 2,914,711.
#### Delphine SEMAN, Plaintiff, v. PITTSBURGH BREWING COMPANY, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 35533.

United States District Court N. D. Ohio, E. D.

March 31, 1960.

Charles S. Huffman, Jr., Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Daniel C. Schipfer, Arter, Hadden, Wykoff & Van Duzer, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant.

KALBFLEISCH, District Judge.

This is a personal injury action brought by a resident of Parma, Ohio, in this judicial district and division, against the Pittsburgh Brewing Company, of Pittsburgh, Pa.

The return shows that a copy of the summons and complaint were served by *210a deputy marshal of the Western District of Pennsylvania upon the Secretary of the defendant corporation on August 29, 1959, at Pittsburgh.

Defendant has filed a motion to quash service of summons on the ground that the service was defectively made outside the jurisdiction of this court. Rule 4(f), Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., provides as follows:

> *“Territorial Limits of Effective Service.*All process other than a subpoena may be served anywhere within the territorial limits of the state in which the district court is held and, when a statute of the United States so provides, beyond the territorial limits of that state. A subpoena may be served within the territorial limits provided in Rule 45.”

Plaintiff has not cited any federal or Ohio statute authorizing service of process outside this state.

Plaintiff filed a motion to strike defendant’s motion to quash on the ground that defendant, not having filed its motion within the twenty-day answer period, had waived the defense of improper venue.

 As defendant correctly replies, its motion is directed to improper service of process, not to venue. Improper venue is a matter of defense which a defendant may waive by mere non-assertion (Rule 12 (h)), but defendant cannot waive lack of service by non-appearance because, there being no jurisdiction over the person, the twenty-day period cannot begin to run. In re Eizen Furs, Inc., D.C.E.D.Pa.1950, 10 F.R.D. 137. The defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person may be waived only if the parties appear voluntarily. Orange Theatre Corp. v. Rayherstz Amusement Corp., 3 Cir., 1944, 139 F.2d 871, 873.

The record showing an insufficiency of process, defendant's motion to quash will be sustained and plaintiff’s motion to strike will be overruled.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 12

- 00493

- CV

TIDEPORT DISTRIBUTING, INC.

v. RAMON CERDA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE

ESTATE OF BRITTANY CERDA, DECEASED

On Appeal from the 148th District Court of Nueces County , Texas

Trial Ca use No. 10

- 2767

- E

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are taxed against party incurring same.
We further order this decision certified below for observance. March 20, 2014
#### Bernard H. GLATZER, petitioner, v. ENRON CORPORATION, et al.

No. 10-175.

Oct. 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice SOTOMAYOR took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Exhibit 13.1





CERTIFICATION



The certification set forth below is being
submitted in connection with TiGenix’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 (the “Report”)
for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange
Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.



Eduardo Bravo, Chief Executive Officer of
TiGenix, certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



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



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



Date: April 6, 2017



|/s/ Eduardo Bravo       | 
|----------------------- | 
|Name: Eduardo Bravo     | 
|Chief Executive Officer |