alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1
 
 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 Professional Lease Management Income Fund I, L.L.C., (the "Fund"), on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, the President of the Manager and of the Fund, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:
 
 (1)  the Report of the Fund filed today fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Fund.
 
 
 
 
 /s/ James A. Coyne
 James A. Coyne
 President of PLM Financial Services, Inc.
 March 29,2004
exv10w3



 





EXHIBIT 10.3




FIRST AMENDMENT TO

CASTLEWOOD HOLDINGS LIMITED

2006-2010 ANNUAL INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PROGRAM




     WHEREAS, Castlewood Holdings Limited established the Castlewood Holdings Limited 2006-2010
Annual Incentive Compensation Program (the “Program”); and



     WHEREAS, the name of Castlewood Holdings Limited has been changed to Enstar Group Limited; and




     WHEREAS, it is desired to amend the Program to change the name of the Company, to change the
reference to the Castlewood Holdings Limited 2006 Equity Incentive Plan to the Enstar Group Limited
2006 Equity Incentive Plan and to change the name of the Program to the Enstar Group Limited
2006-2010 Annual Incentive Compensation Program.



     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective March 30, 2007, to substitute
Enstar Group Limited for Castlewood Holdings Limited each place it appears in the Program.
NOS. 12-14-00042-CR

 12-14-00043-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE: 

BRUCE E. DIGBY,

RELATOR

§

§

§

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Bruce E. Digby, an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, seeks 

mandamus relief against Reba Squyres, District Clerk of Angelina County, and the Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ). We dismiss the 

petition in each cause.

This court has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus against “a judge of a district or 

county court in the court of appeals district” and other writs as necessary to enforce the court’s 

appellate jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221 (West 2004). Generally, neither the 

District Clerk of Angelina County nor the personnel at TDCJ are parties against whom we have 

the power to issue a writ of mandamus. See id. And Relator has not demonstrated that the 

exercise of our writ power is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. Therefore, we have no 

authority to grant the relief Relator seeks. Accordingly, the petition in each cause is dismissed 

for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion delivered February 12, 2014.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

FEBRUARY 12, 2014

NO. 12-14-00042-CR

BRUCE E. DIGBY,

Relator

V.

HON. PAUL E. WHITE,

Respondent

Original Proceeding

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed 

by BRUCE E. DIGBY, who is the defendant in Cause No. CR-7493, pending on the docket of 

the 159th Judicial District Court of Angelina County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus 

having been filed herein on February 7, 2014, and the same having been duly considered, 

because it is the opinion of this Court that this Court does not have jurisdiction and that the 

application for writ of error should be dismissed, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED 

and ORDERED that the said application for writ of error be, and the same is, hereby DISMISSED

FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. 

Brian Hoyle, Justice.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

FEBRUARY 12, 2014

NO. 12-14-00043-CR

BRUCE E. DIGBY,

Relator

V.

HON. PAUL E. WHITE,

Respondent

Original Proceeding

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed 

by BRUCE E. DIGBY, who is the defendant in Cause No. CR-22949, pending on the docket of 

the 159th Judicial District Court of Angelina County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus 

having been filed herein on February 7, 2014, and the same having been duly considered, 

because it is the opinion of this Court that this Court does not have jurisdiction and that the 

application for writ of error should be dismissed, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED 

and ORDERED that the said application for writ of error be, and the same is, hereby DISMISSED

FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. 

Brian Hoyle, Justice.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           0
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,500
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       31,191
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                    16,252
<OTHER-SE>                                 (45,943)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,500
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 0
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                     0
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0


</TABLE>
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**464 KA 10-01872** 
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOSE LATORRE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT L. KEMP OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (STEPHEN J. DILORENZO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Christopher J. Burns, J.), rendered September 8, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of manslaughter in the first degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]), defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction and that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. The issue of legal sufficiency is preserved for our review regarding the evidence of identification because that was the basis of defendant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal after the People presented their proof. Defendant failed, however, to preserve for our review his further contention concerning the alleged legal insufficiency of the evidence of intent, inasmuch as defense counsel did not address the issue of intent in his motion for a trial order of dismissal ( see generally People v Gray , 86 NY2d 10, 19). With respect to the legal sufficiency of the identification evidence, we note that reversal is warranted “where the testimony is incredible and unbelievable, that is, impossible of belief because it is manifestlyuntrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, or selfcontradictory” ( People v Wallace , 306 AD2d 802, 802-803 [internal quotation marks omitted]). We conclude that the evidence of identification in this case, although largely circumstantial, is legally sufficient to support the conviction ( see generally People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495). In addition, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury ( see People v Danielson

, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see generally Bleakley , 69 NY2d at**-2- 464 KA 10-01872** 

495; People v Flagg , 59 AD3d 1003, 1004, lv denied 12 NY3d 853). We further reject defendant’s contention that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to request that Supreme Court charge a lesser included offense ( see People v Calderon , 66 AD3d 314, 320, lv denied 13 NY3d 858). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: April 20, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
EX-10.15.2



 Exhibit 10.15.2 

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO ETHANOL MARKETING AGREEMENT 

THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO ETHANOL MARKETING AGREEMENT dated effective May 15, 2014 (the “Amendment”), is made and entered
into by NGL CRUDE LOGISTICS, LLC, f/k/a Gavilon, LLC (“NGL”) and ABE SOUTH DAKOTA, LLC (“Producer”). 

RECITALS: 
  

	 	(a)	NGL and Producer are parties to an Ethanol Marketing Agreement dated May 4, 2012, as amended by that certain Amendment No. 1 dated July 31, 2012 (collectively, the “Agreement”).


  

	 	(b)	The Parties desire to amend the Term of the Agreement as set forth below. 

 AGREEMENT: 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the agreements herein made and for other good and valuable consideration, the Parties acknowledge and
agree as follows: 
 1. Ethanol Agreement Amendment. Effective as of the date hereof, the Agreement shall be amended as
follows: 
  

	 	1.1	Term. The first sentence of Section 2.1 of the Agreement is hereby deleted and the following substituted therefor: 


“Unless terminated earlier according to its terms, this Agreement shall be effective August 1, 2012 (the “Commencement
Date”), and shall continue until June 30, 2016 (the “Initial Term”), unless extended as set forth in Section 2.2.” 

2. Binding and Effective/Successors and Assigns. Upon execution and delivery of this Amendment by the Parties hereto, this
Amendment shall become binding and effective. This Amendment shall inure to the benefit of and be binding on the Parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns. 

3. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of
which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 
 4. Defined Terms. All capitalized terms in this
Amendment shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement, unless otherwise defined herein. 
 5. Conflicts. The
terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect as amended by this Amendment. 
 6. Entire
Agreement. This Amendment constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereto. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed by their
respective officers thereunto duly authorized as of the day and year first above written. 
  

									
	 NGL CRUDE LOGISTICS, LLC
	 		 	ABE SOUTH DAKOTA, LLC 
					
	 By:
	 	 /s/ David Kehoe
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Richard Peterson

	 Name:
	 	David Kehoe	 		 	Name:	 	Richard Peterson
	 Title:
	 	Executive VP - NGLEP	 		 	Title:	 	President & CEO

  
  

 
  

			
	Amendment No. 2 to Ethanol Marketing Agreement	 	 Page 
 2
Exhibit 8.1

List of Significant Subsidiaries



|                                           |  |              |  |                 
|------------------------------------------ |  | ------------ |  | ----------------
|Subsidiaries                               |  | Jurisdiction |  | Usual Name      
|Compañía Eléctrica Tarapacá S.A.           |  | Chile        |  | Celta           
|Empresa Eléctrica Pehuenche S.A.           |  | Chile        |  | Pehuenche       
|Sociedad Concesionaria Túnel El Melón S.A. |  | Chile        |  | Túnel El Melón  
|Endesa Costanera S.A.                      |  | Argentina    |  | Endesa Costanera
|Hidroeléctrica El Chocón S.A.              |  | Argentina    |  | El Chocón       
|Emgesa S.A. E.S.P.                         |  | Colombia     |  | Emgesa          
|Edegel S.A.A.                              |  | Perú         |  | Edegel
Order entered December 9 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 1 4 - 0 0 490 - CR No. 05 - 14 - 00491 - CR No. 05 - 14 - 00492 - CR No. 05 - 14 - 00493 - CR JIMIL BROWN , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 194th Ju dicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F10 - 33944 - M, F10 - 33945 - M, F12 - 33914 - M, F12 - 34048 - M 

### O RDER Counsel filed an Anders brief in th e s e case s . The appeal s are from appellant’s conviction following the adjudication of his guilt. Although counsel mentions the original plea proceedings, he does not discuss the March 26, 2012 or the September 12, 2012 hearings. Nor does the brief address the validity of the indictment , the admonishments, or any motions that may have been filed. M oreover, the record reflects that the conditions of appellant’s community supervision were modified, but counsel does not discuss the proceedings, if any, at which the modifications were made. Finally, counsel does not address any motions that were filed by appellant. Accordingly, we conclude the brief does not satisfy the requirements of Anders and its progeny.See Jeffery v. State , 903 S.W.2d 776 (Tex. App.

– – Dallas 1995, no pet.). Accordingly, we STRIKE the Anders brief filed by counsel on December 5, 2014

. We ORDER counsel to file , within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order , either an amended brief that complies with the requirements of Anders and its progeny or a brief raising issues on the merits.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
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

June 23, 2009 

d0615 

Order 

 

June 23, 2009 

138598 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138598 

 COA: 290559 

Oakland CC: 2007-217945-FC 

ANDREW JULIUS HALL, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 27, 2009 order 

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

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

TYLER JAMES WHITHAM, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D16-3388

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed April 17, 2019. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota 

County; Charles E. Roberts, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Joanna Beth Conner, Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Bilal Ahmed Faruqui, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa; and 

Allison C. Heim, Assistant Attorney General, 

Tampa (substituted as counsel of record), 

for Appellee.

KELLY, Judge.

Tyler James Whitham was originally charged with aggravated assault with 

a firearm. He pleaded no contest to the reduced charge of improper exhibition of a 
- 2 -

firearm, a first-degree misdemeanor, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his 

motion to dismiss based on the Stand Your Ground statute, section 776.032, Florida 

Statutes (2018). In Martin v. State, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D1016, D1017 (Fla. 2d DCA May 

4, 2018), this court held that the 2017 amendment to the statute that shifted the burden 

of proof to the State applied to cases pending on appeal even when the immunity 

hearing was held before the effective date of the statute. As was the case in Martin, the 

trial court here denied Mr. Whitham's motion to dismiss on the ground that he did not 

carry his burden of proof. Accordingly, we conclude that this case is controlled by 

Martin and that we are required to reverse for a new evidentiary hearing at which the 

State will have the burden of proof. See id. at D1018. If at the conclusion of the new 

immunity hearing the trial court determines that Mr. Whitham is entitled to immunity, it 

shall enter an order to that effect and dismiss the information with prejudice. Id. 

Conversely, if it determines that he is not entitled to immunity, the court shall enter an 

order reflecting its findings and reinstate Mr. Whitham's conviction.

We acknowledge that our holding in Martin is in conflict with Love v. State, 

247 So. 3d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA), review granted, No. SC18-747, 2018 WL 3147946 (Fla. 

June 26, 2018), and Hight v. State, 253 So. 3d 1137 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), and 

accordingly certify the conflict.

Reversed and remanded with directions; conflict certified.

MORRIS and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000928032
<NAME> AIM GROUP INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          70,342
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  505,428
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    160,770
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               755,069
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 163,540
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,354,337
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          716,818
<BONDS>                                      1,126,073
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        39,801
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,471,645
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,354,337
<SALES>                                      3,092,278
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,092,278
<CGS>                                        2,148,191
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,148,191
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,228,321
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             131,429
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (415,663)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (415,663)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (415,663)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE



 Exhibit 10.17 
 SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE 
  

			
	$10,000,000	 	Advance Date: March 20, 2007

 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a Delaware corporation, for itself and each of
its Subsidiaries (the “Borrower”) hereby promises to pay to the order of Hercules Technology Growth Capital, Inc., a Maryland corporation or the holder of this Note (the “Lender”) at 400 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 or
such other place of payment as the holder of this Secured Promissory Note (this “Promissory Note”) may specify from time to time in writing, in lawful money of the United States of America, the principal amount of Ten Million Dollars
($10,000,000) together with interest at a floating rate equal to the prime rate as reported in the Wall Street Journal, and if not reported, then the prime rate next reported in the Wall Street Journal, plus two and one-half percentage points
(2.50%) per annum based upon a year consisting of 360 days, with interest computed daily based on the actual number of days in each month. 
 This Promissory Note is the Note referred to in, and is executed and delivered in connection with, that certain Loan and Security Agreement dated March 20, 2007, by and between Borrower and Lender (as the same may from time to time be
amended, modified or supplemented in accordance with its terms, the “Loan Agreement”), and is entitled to the benefit and security of the Loan Agreement and the other Loan Documents (as defined in the Loan Agreement), to which reference is
made for a statement of all of the terms and conditions thereof. All payments shall be made in accordance with the Loan Agreement. All terms defined in the Loan Agreement shall have the same definitions when used herein, unless otherwise defined
herein. An Event of Default under the Loan Agreement shall constitute a default under this Promissory Note. Reference to the Loan Agreement shall not affect or impair the absolute and unconditional obligation of the Borrowers to pay all principal
and interest and premium, if any, under this Promissory Note upon demand or as otherwise provided herein. 
 Borrower waives presentment and
demand for payment, notice of dishonor, protest and notice of protest under the UCC or any applicable law. Borrower agrees to make all payments under this Promissory Note without setoff, recoupment or deduction and regardless of any counterclaim or
defense. This Promissory Note has been negotiated and delivered to Lender and is payable in the State of California. This Promissory Note shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of California,
excluding any conflicts of law rules or principles that would cause the application of the laws of any other jurisdiction. 
  

					
	 BORROWER FOR ITSELF AND
 ON BEHALF OF ITS
SUBSIDIARIES:
	 	AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
			
		 	By:	 	 /s/ Gerald Wisler

		 	Title:	 	President and CEO