alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE INDESCO
INTERNATIONAL, INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             106
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,335
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     11,502
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,804
<PP&E>                                          81,820
<DEPRECIATION>                                (13,920)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 168,591
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,610
<BONDS>                                        145,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,062
<OTHER-SE>                                    (23,058)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   168,591
<SALES>                                         78,136
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                78,136
<CGS>                                           59,036
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   59,036
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,507
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,425
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,747)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       107
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,854)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,854)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
**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 on Form 10-K of APT Systems, Inc. (the "Company”) for the year ended January 31, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Glenda Dowie, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

  

(1) The Report 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 Company.

 

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.
§ 11.422 Unauthorized use of credit cards. ( a ) A person commits a misdemeanor if he or she uses a credit card for the purpose of obtaining property or services with knowledge that: ( 1 ) The card is stolen or forged; or
( 2 ) The card has been revoked or cancelled; or
( 3 ) For any other reason his or her use of the card is unauthorized by the issuer.
( b ) *Credit card* means a writing or other evidence of an undertaking to pay for property or services delivered or rendered to or upon the order of a designated person or bearer.
§ 166.219 How do I acquire a permit through negotiation? ( a ) Permits may be negotiated and granted by the Indian landowners with the permittee of their choice. The BIA may negotiate and grant permits on behalf of Indian landowners pursuant to § 166.205 of this part.
( b ) Upon the conclusion of negotiations with the Indian landowners or their representatives, and the satisfaction of any applicable conditions, you may submit an executed permit and any required supporting documents to us for appropriate action. Where a permit is in a form that has previously been accepted or approved by us, and all of the documents needed to support the findings required by this part have been received, we will decide whether to approve the permit within 30 days of the date of our receipt of the permit and supporting documents. If we decide to approve or disapprove a permit, we will notify the parties immediately and advise them of their right to appeal the decision under part 2 of this title.
( c ) In negotiating a permit, the Indian landowners may choose to include their land in the permit in exchange for their receipt of a share of the revenues or profits generated by the permit. Under such an arrangement, the permit may be granted to a joint venture or other legal entity owned, in part, by the Indian landowners.
( d ) Receipt of permit payments based upon income received from the land will not, of itself, make the Indian landowner a partner, joint venturer, or associate of the permittees.
( e ) We will assist prospective permittees in contacting the Indian landowners or their representatives, for the purpose of negotiating a permit.
#### § 166.421 If a permit is canceled for non-payment, does that extinguish the permittee's debt?

No. The permittee remains liable for any delinquent payment. No future permits will be issued until all outstanding debts related to Indian agricultural lands are paid.
§ 1200.20 How can a tribe withdraw additional funds? ( a ) If a tribe has withdrawn funds under an approved tribal management plan and wishes to withdraw additional funds that will be managed under the same plan, it need not submit a complete new application. The tribe must: ( 1 ) Notify us of the additional amount it intends to withdraw and whether the funds to be withdrawn are in kind or cash. (Written notification should be provided to our address in § 1200.13);
( 2 ) Send us a tribal resolution approving the new withdrawal and certifying that the funds are being withdrawn subject to the same conditions and that they will be managed under the plan in the original approved application;
( 3 ) Send us a copy of the most recent compliance audit or investment report.
( b ) After we finish our review we will release the additional funds, unless the compliance audit or investment report indicates that the tribe is not complying with its management plan. In this case, we will not release the additional funds until the tribe demonstrates that it is complying with the management plan.
### §7406. Service schools: leaves of absence for instructors

The officer in charge of an Army service school may grant a leave of absence for the period of the suspension of the ordinary academic studies, without reduction of pay or allowances, to any officer on duty exclusively as an instructor at the school.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 235, §4306; renumbered §7406, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §808(c)(1), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1839.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 4306 | 10:843. | Mar. 23, 1910, ch. 115 (proviso under "United States Service Schools"), 36 Stat. 244. |

The words "The provisions of section 1144 of this title, authorizing leaves of absence to certain officers of the Military Academy * * * are hereby, extended to include" are omitted as surplusage.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 4306 of this title as this section.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
#### § 2.404 What will happen to my appeal if I fail to post a required appeal bond?

If you are required to post a bond and fail to do so within the time allowed by the reviewing official to post the bond, the reviewing official will dismiss your appeal.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 29, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00232

- CV

CHAMPION FOOD SERVICE, INC . and Champion Food Service 2, Inc.

Appellants / C ross

- A ppelle e

v.

PROALAMO FOO DS, L.L.C. and ProCoastal, L.L.C.

Appellees / C ross

- A ppellant

From the 57th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019

- CI

- 10530 Honorable Antonia Arteaga , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellants’ brief was originally due August 8, 2022. We granted appellants’ first motion
for extension of time, extending the deadline for filing the brief to September 7, 2022. On August 26, 2022, appellants filed a motion requesting an additional extension of time to file the brief until September 27, 2022. After consideration, we GRANT the motion and ORDER appell ants to file their brief by September 27, 2022

.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

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

court on this 29th day of August, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 10.1
​
FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE
​
This is a First Amendment to Lease dated as of August 17, 2021 by and between Bulfinch Square Limited Partnership, a Massachusetts limited partnership (“Landlord”) and Leap Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Tenant”).
WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant entered into a Lease (“Lease”) dated November 13, 2018 with respect to certain premises at 47 Thorndike Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts; and
WHEREAS, Tenant wishes to delay by two (2) calendar months the date by which it can given an Election Notice to extend the term of the Lease for the Extended Term; and
WHEREAS, Landlord is willing to agree to such a delay in return for a two-month extension of the Original Term.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, Landlord and Tenant agree as follows:
1.Capitalized terms used herein without definition, including in the foregoing recitals, shall have the meanings ascribed to them by the Lease.
2.Notwithstanding Section 2.3 of the Lease, the Election Notice may be given on or before October 30, 2021.
		3.
	The Original Term shall be extended to expire on June 30, 2022.


4.Annual Fixed Rent for the months of May-June 2022 shall be $444,686.00 per annum (i.e. $37,057.17 for each of such two (2) months).
5.Tenant warrants and represents that it has dealt with no broker in connection with this First Amendment to Lease, and that in the event of any brokerage claims or liens against Landlord or the Property predicated on dealings with Tenant, Tenant agrees to defend the same and to indemnify and hold Landlord harmless from any such claim and to discharge any such lien.
6.Except as herein amended the Lease is ratified and affirmed.
​
​
​



-2-

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Landlord and Tenant have executed this First Amendment to Lease as of the date first set forth above.
​
	​


	​


	​


	​



	​
	LANDLORD:

	​
	​

	​
	Bulfinch Square Limited Partnership

	​
	​

	​
	By:
	Courthouse Associates, Inc., its general partner

	​
	​

	​
	​

	​
	​
	By:
	/s/ Kenneth Krozy

	​
	​
	​
	Kenneth Krozy

	​
	​
	​
	Vice President



​
​
	​
	TENANT:

	​
	​

	​
	Leap Therapeutics, Inc.

	​
	​

	​
	By:
	/s/ Douglas E. Onsi

	​
	​
	Name
	Douglas E. Onsi

	​
	​
	Title:
	President & CEO



​
SCWC

- 15

- 0000066

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI  I

________________________________________________________________

STATE OF HAWAI  I, Respondent/Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs.

STANLEY S.L. KONG, Petitioner/Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP

- 15

- 0000066; CR. NO. 09

- 1

- 0683(2))

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wil son, JJ. , with

Circuit Judge Chang in place of Pollack, J., recused)

Petitioner/Defendant

- Appellant Stanley S.L. Kong’s

application for writ of certiorari filed on February 9, 2017, is

hereby accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that no oral argument will be heard

in this case. Any party may, within ten days and pursuant to

Rule 34(c) of the Hawai  i Rules of Appellate Procedure, move for

retention of oral argument.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai  i, March 24 , 2017.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Gary W.B. Chang Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-15-0000066

24-MAR-2017

08:29 AM
§ 169.205 What is the approval process for an amendment of a right-of-way? ( a ) When we receive an amendment for our approval, we will notify the grantee of the date we receive it. We have 30 days from receipt of the executed amendment, proof of required consents, and required documentation (including but not limited to a corrected legal description, if any, and NEPA compliance) to approve or disapprove the amendment. Our determination whether to approve the amendment will be in writing and will state the basis for our approval or disapproval.
( b ) If we need additional time to review, our letter informing the parties that we need additional time for review must identify our initial concerns and invite the parties to respond within 15 days of the date of the letter. We have 30 days from sending the letter informing the parties that we need additional time to approve or disapprove the amendment.
( c ) If we do not meet the deadline in paragraph (a) of this section, or paragraph (b) of this section if applicable, the grantee or Indian landowners may take appropriate action under § 169.304.
an appropriate alimony award); NRS 125B.020(1) (imposing a duty on all 

parents to provide their children with necessary maintenance and 

support); BMW v. Roth, 127 Nev. , 252 P.3d 649, 657 (2011) ("A 

district court would necessarily abuse its discretion if it based its ruling on 

an erroneous view of the law . . . ." (quotation omitted)). 

Second, while the district court appears to have been 

attempting to afford respondent a lifestyle similar to that which he 

enjoyed during the marriage, this cannot be accomplished solely at the 

expense of the paying spouse. NRS 125.150(1)(a) (indicating that alimony 

must be awarded under terms that are "just and equitable"). Here, 

despite finding that "there are no issues as to the physical and mental 

condition of [respondent] as it related to the financial condition, health 

and ability to work," the district court awarded substantial alimony for a 

period of ten years. This award was made in spite of the fact that the 

district court "ha[d] concerns about the ability of [respondent] to manage 

his money." Thus, while it is not necessarily an abuse of discretion to 

award ten years of alimony to a spouse who has money-management 

problems and who is wholly capable of working, the district court's factual 

findings in this case simply do not support such an award. 

Accordingly, we reverse the district court's alimony award, 

and remand this matter to the district court for further proceedings. On 

remand, the district court is instructed to exclude child support in 

determining any alimony award, and it is further instructed to ensure that 

there is a basis for the duration of any such award. NRS 125.150(8). 

Appellant also seeks reversal of the district court's child 

support award. Because a child support award is dictated by a statutory 

formula driven by the paying parent's gross monthly income, see NRS 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
Oc--4001talcosiabareamin S , J. akitrzir , J. tec-j444.., 46 . hut 

Parraguirre Cherry 7 

MINUMENNE 

125B.070; NRS 125B.080(1), and because we perceive no abuse of 

discretion in the district court's finding that respondent's salary was 

$96,000 per year, we affirm the district court's child support award. 

Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996) 

(indicating that child support matters are reviewed for an abuse of 

discretion). 

It is so ORDERED. 

Hardesty 

cc: Hon. Gayle Nathan, District Judge 

Carolyn Worrell, Settlement Judge 

Mary F. Granger 

Lance J. Hendron 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A a. 

3
Document

Exhibit 10.4


FIRST ADDENDUM TO STANDARD INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL MULTI-TENANT LEASE - NET DATED FEBRUARY 27, 2020 BY AND BETWEEN RGS PROPERTIES, AS LESSOR AND EXAGEN DIAGNOSTICS, INC., AS LESSEE, FOR THE PREMISES LOCATED AT 1261 LIBERTY WAY, SUITE A, CALIFORNIA.


Lessor and Lessee mutually agree to amend the lease as follows:


Parties (1.1):
Lessee has changed their name and shall be referred to as Exagen Inc., a Delaware Corporation


Paragraph 1.3 (Term):
The Lease Term will be extended to the new Expiration Date of April 30, 2027


Paragraph 50 (Rent Schedule):
Base Rent shall be as follows:


						
	Dates	Base Rent
	February 1, 2026 - April 30, 2027	$14,750.63 per month




All other terms and conditions of the existing Lease shall remain in full force and effect.


This addendum shall automatically expire if not executed by Lessee on or before Friday October 15, 2021.


AGREED AND ACCEPTED:


									
	LESSOR:		LESSEE:
	RGS Properties		Exagen Inc., a Delaware Corporation
			
	By: /s/ Scott Smith		By: /s/ Ron Rocca
	By: /s/ Greg Smith		Ron Rocca
	Date: 10/19/2021		Title: CEO
			Date: 10/12/2021
#### LURRAE LUPONE ET AL. *v.*LARRY LUPONE ET AL.

Decided July 7, 2004

*William F. Gallagher,*in support of the petition.

*John A. Keyes,*in opposition.

NORCOTT, J.,

did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Exhibit 34.1a



LOGO

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

Tothe Board of Directors and shareholders of CoreLogic, Inc.:

We have examined managements assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance, that CoreLogic Tax Services, LLC (the
Company), a subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc. complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB for all loans for residential and commercial mortgage loan
outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the residential and commercial tax service provider (the Platform), as of December 31, 2016 and for the year then ended, only including 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(ii),
1122(d)(2)(v), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii) and 1122(d)(4)(xiii), which the Company has determined are applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible
for the Companys compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly,
included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of
selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected servicing activities
performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts
calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Companys compliance with
the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, managements assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of
and for the year ended December 31, 2016 for all loans for residential and commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the residential and commercial tax service provider is fairly stated, in all material
respects.



LOGO

February 6, 2017



LOGO
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 92-1076

Summary Calendar

_____________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

JERROLD MORRIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

______________________________________________________

(September 24, 1992)

Before JOLLY, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

DUHÉ, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Morris was charged with drug offenses arising out of

two separate transactions on different days. The jury acquitted

him of the charges stemming from the first transaction, but

convicted him of those stemming from the second. He appeals

contending that, since his sole defense was entrapment, his

acquittal on charges from the first event precluded his conviction

on charges from the second because, to acquit as to the first, the

jury must have found no predisposition, and predisposition must be

measured at a time before any government involvement. In the

alternative, he contends that the government's evidence of

predisposition was insufficient. We disagree with both contentions

and affirm.
2

His first argument has been squarely rejected by both the

Second and Ninth Circuits. U.S. v. North, 746 F.2d 627, 630 (9th

Cir.), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1058 (1985); U.S. v. Smith, 802 F.2d

1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 1986); U.S. v. Khubani, 791 F.2d 260, 264 (2d.

Cir), cert denied, 479 U.S. 851 (1986). We agree with those

results and find those cases consistent with U.S. v. Wells, 506

F.2d 924 (5th Cir. 1975). In Wells we rejected the contention that

the jury should have been instructed that it could find that the

several drug sales were a "course of conduct" induced by government

activity. Id. at 926-927. We held that the district court

correctly instructed the jury that it should consider each count

separately, allowing it to consider whether Defendant was guilty of

any or all of the offenses charged. Id. at 926.

We further note that even if the verdicts be considered

inconsistent that is not ground for reversal. U.S. v. Pena, 949

F.2d 751, 755 (5th Cir. 1991).

Where the jury has rejected an entrapment defense, the

standard of review is whether, when viewing the evidence in the

light most favorable to the Government, a reasonable jury could

find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was predisposed

to commit the offense. U.S. v. Arditti, 955 F.2d 331, 343 (5th

Cir. 1992). Here the version of events differs between the

testimony of the Government agent and Appellant. The jury was

entitled to credit the agent's testimony rather than that of the

Appellant. The agent's testimony was more than sufficient to carry

the Government's burden.
3

AFFIRMED.