alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
snap-ex102_425.htm



Exhibit 10.2

[*] = Certain confidential information contained in this document, marked by brackets, has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 24b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

Addendum No. 4 to the Google Cloud Platform License Agreement

This Addendum No. 4 (the “Addendum”) amends the Google Cloud Platform License Agreement previously entered into between Google LLC ("Google"), and the customer set out in the signature block below (the "Customer") (the “Agreement”).  Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Addendum have the meaning given to them in the Agreement. This Addendum will be effective from the date on which it is signed by Google (the “Addendum Effective Date”).

1.Affiliate Orders and [*]. 


	
 
	
1.1
	
Customer Affiliate Fees. Section 2 of Amendment 3 is hereby amended to read as follows:




[*] 


	
 
	
1.2
	
Customer Affiliate Fees and [*] Section 3 of Amendment 3 is hereby amended to read as follows:




[*]

2.Inference API.  [*]: 

[*]

3.Miscellaneous. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain unchanged and in full force and effect.  If the Agreement and the Addendum conflict, the Addendum will govern. This Addendum is subject to the “Governing Law” section in the Agreement.

This Addendum has been signed by the parties’ authorized representatives.

[signatures follow on separate page]

 



 

 


	
Google LLC
	
 
	
Customer: Snap Inc.

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
By:
	
 
	
By:

	
/s/ Philipp Schindler
	
 
	
/s/Jerry Hunter

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Print Name:
	
 
	
Print Name:

	
Philipp Schindler
	
 
	
Jerry Hunter

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Title:
	
 
	
Title:

	
Authorized Signatory
	
 
	
VP Core Engineering

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Date:
	
 
	
Date:

	
January 19, 2018
	
 
	
January 18, 2018




 

 


	
Customer: Snap Group Limited

	
 
	
 

	
By:
	
/s/ David Lewis

	
 
	
 

	
Print Name:
	
David Lewis

	
 
	
 

	
Title:
	
Director and Associate General Counsel

	
 
	
 

	
Date:
	
January 18, 2018
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24

- 6217

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,
Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
MICHAEL FOSTER FELTON, a/k/a Mike ,
Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. James K. Bredar , Senior District Judge. ( 1:11

- cr

- 00003

- JKB

- 16 )

Submitted : May 2 1 , 2024 Decided: May 24, 2024

Before WYNN and BENJAMIN , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN , Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Michael Foster Felton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6217 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/24/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Michael Foster Felton appeals the district court’s April 18, 2019, order denying his
motion for copy work. W e confine our review to the issues raised in Felton’s informal

brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Felton’s informal brief does not challenge the district

court ’ s finding that Felton failed to show a particularized need for the copy work, he has
forfeited appellate review of the court ’ s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177
(4th Cir. 2014) (noting court ’ s review is limited to issues preserved in informal brief);

Williams v. Giant Food Inc. , 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004) ( i ssue s not raised in

brief are abandoned ). Accordingly, we affirm

. ∗ 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

∗ Felton’s notice of appeal was untimely. But we decline to exercise our authority to dismiss the appeal sua sponte. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6217 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/24/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 11 , 2016.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 16

- 00441

- CR NO. 14

- 16

- 0044 2

- CR

RONALD DWAYNE WHITFIELD , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 557164 & 617718

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

In trial court cause number 557164, appellant was convicted of burglary of a vehicle on March 5, 1990. In cause number 617718 appellant was convicted of burglary of a building on June 5, 1992. On March 16, 2016, appellant filed notices of appeals in both trial court cause numbers

.2

A defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after sentence is impose d when the defendant has not filed a motion for new trial. See Tex. R. App.
P. 26.2(a)(1). A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of Rule 26 is essential to vest the court of appeals with jurisdiction. Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). If an appeal is not timely perfected, a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal. Under those circumstances it can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. Id.

A ccordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Busby, Donovan, and Brown

. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-660

In Re: ANTHONY GRANDISON; STEVEN H. OKEN; JOHN

BOOTH-EL; WESLEY EUGENE BAKER, et al., Plaintiffs, Prisoners of the Maryland Adjustment

Center, under a sentence of death, on behalf

of themselves and others similarly situated,

Petitioners.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-1396-S)

Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 13, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Grandison, Steven H. Oken, John Booth-El, Wesley Eugene

Baker, Petitioners Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Grandison, Steven H. Oken, John Booth-El, and Wesley

Eugene Baker petition for a writ of mandamus seeking relief from

the district court's orders dismissing their lawsuit demanding a

declaration that certain provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 are unconstitutional. Court records

reveal that an appeal from the district court's decision is pending

with this court.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary

circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394,

402 (1976). Mandamus relief is available only if there are no other

means by which the relief sought could be granted, see In re:

Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987), and may not be used as a

substitute for appeal. See In re: United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d

958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). The party seeking mandamus relief carries

the heavy burden of showing that he has "no other adequate means to

attain the relief he desires" and that his right to such relief is

"clear and indisputable." Allied Chem. Corp v. Diaflon, Inc., 449

U.S. 33, 35 (1980) (citations omitted).

The petitioners have not made the required showing. Accordingly, while we grant the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny mandamus relief. We deny the motion to expedite appeal

or for temporary relief. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
3

rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

PETITION DENIED
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 7, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00928

- CV

Jimmy ADDOCK, Appellant

v.

FIVE STAR RENTALS/SALES INC.,

Appellee s

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16480B Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On November 29, 2018, appellant Jimmy Ad c ock filed a notice of appeal in the trial court, stating he was appealing an order granting summary judgment in favor of appellee Five Star Rentals/Sales, Inc. Thereafter, on December 11, 2018, appellant filed a letter in this court, indicating the parties have settled and they intend to file a motion for non

- suit once all settlement

documents have been completed and the agreed upon payment is exchanged.

Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that this appeal is ABATED . Appellant is

ORDERED to file in this court on or before February 6, 2019 a status update regarding the

po tential settlement or, in the alternative, dispositive motion. All other deadlines are abated until

further order of this court.

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on the trial court, all counsel, the district clerk, and the court reporter.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 7th day of January, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,057,712
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,697,797
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 16,680,106
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            32,826,681
<PP&E>                                       4,751,274
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              70,900,055
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       21,637,719
<BONDS>                                     22,784,262
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           15,177
<PREFERRED>                                         37
<COMMON>                                         7,644
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,455,216
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                70,900,055
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,089,436
<CGS>                                       11,755,652
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,523,413
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,185,796
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,643,016
<INCOME-TAX>                                   101,867
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,541,149
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      719,903
<NET-INCOME>                                   821,246
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1  Certification by the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Entheos Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on the Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Harmel Rayat, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (i) the Report filed by the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) The information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods presented therein.  ENTHEOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.Date:  May 14, 2007By:/s/ Harmel RayatHarmel Rayat
President and Chief Executive Officer  This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 National Property Analysts Master Limited Partnership (“NPAMLP”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edward B. Lipkin, President of EBL&S, Inc., the Managing General Partner of NPAMLP 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; and
 
 (2) Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NPAMLP.
 
 National Property Analysts Master Limited Partnership(Registrant)Date:
March 30, 2011By:
EBL&S, Inc., its managing general partnerBy:
/s/ Edward B. LipkinName: Edward B. LipkinTitle:   President
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 National Property Analysts Master
Limited Partnership ("NPAMLP") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Robert McKinney, President of Feldman International, Inc.,
the Equity General Partner of NPAMLP certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

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

     (2) Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NPAMLP.

                              National Property Analysts Master Limited
                              Partnership
                              (Registrant)

                              Date: March 12, 2004

                              By: Feldman International Inc., its equity general
                                  partner

                              By: /s/ Robert McKinney
                                  ---------------------------------------------
                                  Name:  Robert McKinney
                                  Title: President
#### Jaswant Singh SRAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-72229.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 14, 2011.

Olumide Kolawole Obayemi, Esquire, The Law Offices of Olumide K. Obayemi, San Leandro, CA, for Petitioner.

Corey Leigh Farrell, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jaswant Singh Sran, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, *Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003), and we review de novo due process claims, *Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft,*324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination because Sran submitted several fraudulent documents. *See Lin v. Gonzales,*434 F.3d 1158, 1162 (9th Cir.2006) (IJ may deny an asylum application as not credible based on documentary evidence if there is evidence undermining the reliability of the documents). We lack jurisdiction to consider Sran’s contention that the IJ erred when it relied on documents he did not obtain, because he did not present this argument to the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). In the absence of credible testimony, Sran’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Farah,*348 F.3d at 1156.

Because Sran’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence the agency found not credible, and he points to no other evidence showing it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim also fails. *See id.*at 1156-57.

Finally, we reject Sran’s contentions that the IJ violated his due process rights. The admission of the hearsay testimony of the government investigator’s interviewees in India was not fundamentally unfair. *See Gu v. Gonzales,*454 F.3d 1014, 1021 (9th Cir.2006). In addition, Sran has not demonstrated the revised transcript of the government investigator’s testimony, the *776absence of a translation of the proceeding in which the IJ and the attorneys agreed on a methodology for re-transcribing the government investigator’s testimony, or the IJ’s sustained objections to questions regarding the jail record, either constituted an error or caused prejudice. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.Sd 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2611 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to authorize the Securing 

the Cities Initiative of the Department of Homeland Security, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 21, 2009 

Mr. KING of New York (for himself, Mrs. LOWEY, and Mr. ISRAEL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to authorize 

the Securing the Cities Initiative of the Department of 

Homeland Security, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF SECURING THE CITIES INI4 TIATIVE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Title XIX of the Homeland Secu6 rity Act of 2002 is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing new section: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2611 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 1908. AUTHORIZATION OF SECURING THE CITIES INI2 TIATIVE. 

3 ‘‘(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 

4 ‘‘(1) The Securing the Cities Initiative of the 

5 Department uses next generation radiation detection 

6 technology to detect the transport of nuclear and ra7 diological material in urban areas by terrorists or 

8 other unauthorized individuals. 

9 ‘‘(2) The technology used by partners in the Se10 curing the Cities Initiative leverages radiation detec11 tion technology used at ports of entry. 

12 ‘‘(3) The Securing the Cities Initiative has fos13 tered unprecedented collaboration and coordination 

14 among its Federal, State, and local partners. 

15 ‘‘(4) The Securing the Cities Initiative is a crit16 ical national capability to detect the dangerous intro17 duction of nuclear and radiological material. 

18 ‘‘(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

19 is authorized to be appropriated to the Director of the Do20 mestic Nuclear Detection Office of the Department for the 

21 Securing the Cities Initiative such sums as may be nec22 essary for each fiscal year, including such sums as are nec23 essary to provide to each city in which the initiative is 

24 implemented after fiscal year 2009, and for each city in 

25 which it has been implemented by fiscal year 2009— 

26 ‘‘(1) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2611 IH

1 ‘‘(2) not less than $10,000,000 in sustainment 

2 assistance for each fiscal year thereafter.’’. 

3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of con4 tents in section 1(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 

5 2002 is amended by inserting after the item relating to 

6 section 1907 the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 1908. Authorization of Securing the Cities Initiative.’’. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements  on Form  S-3  (File  No.  33-83960,  33-93490,  33-94728,  333-4966,
333-24017,  333-24543,  333-44681,  333-51427,  333-66355, 333-70837, 333-74171,
333-80985  and  333-93547)  and Form S-8  (File  Nos.  33-99246,  333-57237  and
333-57241) of First Washington Realty Trust, Inc. and Subsidiaries of our report
dated  February  9, 2000  relating to the  financial  statements  and  financial
statement schedules, which appears in the Form 10-K.


/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Baltimore, Maryland
March 28, 2000
**Exhibit 23.4**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form F-3 No. 333-195009), and the related Prospectus of Empresa Nacional deElectricidad S.A. (“Endesa-Chile”) of our report dated April 24, 2015, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Enel Brasil S.A. and subsidiaries, included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31,2014. 

/s/ Ernst & Young Auditores Independentes S.S. 

Ernst & Young Auditores Independentes S.S. 

Rio de Janeiro,RJ – Brazil 

April 30, 2015
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Demonya Hicks, Appellant.

[667 NYS2d 130]

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Rosen, J.), rendered September 10, 1996, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of assault in the second degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to assault in the second degree in full satisfaction of a three-count indictment. He was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement to a prison term of 2 to 4 years. Defendant contends that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive and requests that this Court reduce it in the interest of justice in light of, *inter alia,*his age, background and subsequent rehabilitation. Inasmuch as defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal as part of his guilty plea, his challenge to the harshness of the sentence is not preserved for our review *(see, People v Schwendinger,*240 AD2d 822, *lv denied*90 NY2d 910). In any event, were we to consider the merits, we would find that the negotiated sentence, which significantly reduced defendant’s sentence exposure, was neither harsh nor excessive *(see, People v Diaz,*240 AD2d 961, 962); nor would we find any extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.