alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.2






FIRST AMENDMENT TO

PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT




THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made as of the
24th day of October, 2007 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Sevens St. Louis, LLC,
a Delaware limited partnership (“Seller”), and Triple Net Properties, LLC, a Virginia limited
liability company (“Purchaser”).



RECITALS




WHEREAS, Seller and Purchaser, entered into that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement dated
September 19, 2007, as amended (the “Agreement”), whereby Purchaser agreed to purchase from Seller
that certain real property known as 7777 Bonhomme, St. Louis, Missouri as more particularly
described in the Agreement; and



WHEREAS, Purchaser and Seller desire to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment;



NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises, terms and conditions
contained herein and such other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, Seller and Purchaser hereby agree as follows:



AMENDMENT




1. Defined Terms. Any capitalized terms used herein but not defined shall have the
meanings set forth in the Agreement.



2. Closing. Seller and Purchaser agree to amend the Closing Date as defined in Section
5.1 of the Agreement to read as follows:




5.1 Closing. The closing of the purchase and sale transaction
contemplated herein (the “Closing”) shall take place through an escrow
established with the Title Company at 10:00 a.m. New York time on October 25, 2007
(the “Closing Date”), as the same may have been adjourned as provided in this
Agreement.



3. Proration. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Agreement, Seller and
Purchaser agree that Closing prorations shall be based on a Closing Date of October 24, 2007. At
Closing, Purchaser shall pay Seller $3,119.59, representing Seller’s per diem interest for one day.



4. Ratification. Seller and Purchaser hereby ratify the Agreement, as specifically
modified by this Amendment, and except as expressly provided in this Amendment, the Agreement
remains in full force and effect, unchanged and unaffected.



5. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed to be an original and all such counterparts taken together shall be deemed to
constitute one and the same instrument. For purposes of this Amendment, signatures transmitted by
facsimile or electronically shall be treated as original signatures in all respects.



1



WITNESS the following signatures and seals as of the Effective Date.



SELLER:



SEVENS ST. LOUIS, LLC


a Delaware limited liability company



By: SAP II Manager



By: /s/ L. Thomas Osterman

Name: L. Thomas Osterman

Title: Vice President




PURCHASER:



TRIPLE NET PROPERTIES, LLC





a Virginia limited liability company



By: /s/ Jack R. Maurer

Name: Jack R. Maurer

Title: Executive Vice President





2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DAY HIGH

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2017 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 1, 2017

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

TOTAL 0

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 21
§ 300.501 Opportunity to examine records; parent participation in meetings. ( a ) *Opportunity to examine records.* The parents of a child with a disability must be afforded, in accordance with the procedures of §§ 300.613 through 300.621, an opportunity to inspect and review all education records with respect to— ( 1 ) The identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the child; and
( 2 ) The provision of FAPE to the child.
( b ) *Parent participation in meetings.* ( 1 ) The parents of a child with a disability must be afforded an opportunity to participate in meetings with respect to— ( i ) The identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the child; and
( ii ) The provision of FAPE to the child.
( 2 ) Each public agency must provide notice consistent with § 300.322(a)(1) and (b)(1) to ensure that parents of children with disabilities have the opportunity to participate in meetings described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
( 3 ) A meeting does not include informal or unscheduled conversations involving public agency personnel and conversations on issues such as teaching methodology, lesson plans, or coordination of service provision. A meeting also does not include preparatory activities that public agency personnel engage in to develop a proposal or response to a parent proposal that will be discussed at a later meeting.
( c ) *Parent involvement in placement decisions.* ( 1 ) Each public agency must ensure that a parent of each child with a disability is a member of any group that makes decisions on the educational placement of the parent's child.
( 2 ) In implementing the requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the public agency must use procedures consistent with the procedures described in § 300.322(a) through (b)(1).
( 3 ) If neither parent can participate in a meeting in which a decision is to be made relating to the educational placement of their child, the public agency must use other methods to ensure their participation, including individual or conference telephone calls, or video conferencing.
( 4 ) A placement decision may be made by a group without the involvement of a parent, if the public agency is unable to obtain the parent's participation in the decision. In this case, the public agency must have a record of its attempt to ensure their involvement.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1414(e), 1415(b)(1))
### §401. Power of court

A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—

(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;

(2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;

(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 701; Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title III, §3002(a)(1), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1805.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on section 385 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Judicial Code and Judiciary (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §268, 36 Stat. 1163).

Said section 385 conferred two powers. The first part authorizing courts of the United States to impose and administer oaths will remain in title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Judicial Code and Judiciary. The second part relating to contempt of court constitutes this section.

Changes in phraseology and arrangement were made.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2002—Pub. L. 107–273 inserted "or both," after "fine or imprisonment," in introductory provisions.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS CHACLAN-PEREZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-74005

Agency No. A095-689-760

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Carlos Chaclan-Perez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

FILED

JUN 08 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-74005

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

evidence an adverse credibility determination, Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1088

(9th Cir. 2000), and we deny the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Chaclan-Perez did not challenge the agency’s

dispositive determination that his asylum claim is time-barred. See

Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported

by argument are deemed abandoned).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility

determination. Chaclan-Perez’s testimony was inconsistent with his asylum

application, see Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004), and vague and

lacking in detail concerning his student status during the years he was allegedly

attacked and threatened because of his participation in the university student

organization, see Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding

level of specificity proper consideration in adverse credibility determination). In

addition, Chaclan-Perez failed to provide evidence of his 1998 university

enrollment after the IJ granted a continuance for that purpose. See Sidhu, 220 F.3d

at 1090 (“[I]f the trier of fact either does not believe the applicant or does not know

what to believe, the applicant’s failure to corroborate his testimony can be fatal to

his . . . application.”). In the absence of credible testimony, Chaclan-Perez’s
3 07-74005

withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156

(9th Cir. 2003).

Because Chaclan-Perez’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the agency

found not credible, and he points to no other evidence to show it is more likely

than not he would be tortured if returned to Guatemala, his CAT claim fails. See

id. at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
§ 643.32 What other requirements must a grantee meet? ( a ) *Eligibility of participants.* ( 1 ) A grantee shall determine the eligibility of each participant in the project at the time that the individual is selected to participate.
( 2 ) A grantee shall determine the status of a low-income individual on the basis of the documentation described in section 402A(e) of the HEA.
( b ) *Number of Participants.* For each year of the project period, a grantee must serve at least the number of participants that the Secretary identifies in the Federal Register notice inviting applications for a competition. Through this notice, the Secretary also provides the minimum and maximum grant award amounts for the competition.
( c ) *Recordkeeping.* For each participant, a grantee must maintain a record of— ( 1 ) The basis for the grantee's determination that the participant is eligible to participate in the project under § 643.3;
( 2 ) The grantee's needs assessment for the participant;
( 3 ) The services that are provided to the participant;
( 4 ) The specific educational progress made by the participant as a result of the services; and
( 5 ) To the extent practicable, any services the TS participant receives during the project year from another Federal TRIO program or another federally funded program that serves populations similar to those served under the TS program.
( d ) *Project director.* ( 1 ) A grantee must employ a full-time project director unless— ( i ) The director is also administering one or two additional programs for disadvantaged students operated by the sponsoring institution or agency; or
( ii ) The Secretary grants a waiver of this requirement.
( 2 ) The grantee must give the project director sufficient authority to administer the project effectively.
( 3 ) The Secretary waives the requirements in paragraph (d)(1) of this section if the applicant demonstrates that the project director will be able to effectively administer more than three programs and that this arrangement would promote effective coordination between the TS program and other Federal TRIO Programs (sections 402B through 402F of the HEA) or similar programs funded through other sources.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1840-NEW2) (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-12)
[58 FR 59145, Nov. 5, 1993, as amended at 75 FR 65779, Oct. 26, 2010]
### §§578 to 579. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 578, act June 25, 1940, ch. 421, 54 Stat. 546, which authorized rental of Forest Service equipment to other Federal agencies, was from the Department of Agriculture Appropriation Act, 1941, and was not repeated in subsequent appropriation acts. Similar provisions appeared in the Department of Agriculture Appropriation Act, 1940, approved June 30, 1939, ch. 253, title I, 53 Stat. 955.

Section 578a, acts July 1, 1941, ch. 267, 55 Stat. 422; July 22, 1942, ch. 516, 56 Stat. 679; July 12, 1943, ch. 215, 57 Stat. 411; June 28, 1944, ch. 296, 58 Stat. 443, related to rental of foreign service equipment to non-Federal agencies, and is now covered by section 580 of this title.

Section 579, act June 29, 1954, ch. 409, title I, 68 Stat. 307, which authorized the purchase of improvements in lieu of construction, was from the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1955, and was not repeated in subsequent appropriation acts. Similar provisions were contained in following prior appropriation acts:

July 28, 1953, ch. 251, title I, 67 Stat. 212.

July 5, 1952, ch. 574, title I, 66 Stat. 342.

Aug. 31, 1951, ch. 374, title I, 65 Stat. 232.

Sept. 6, 1950, ch. 896, Ch. VI, title I, 64 Stat. 666.

June 29, 1949, ch. 280, title I, 63 Stat. 337.

June 19, 1948, ch. 543, 62 Stat. 521.

July 30, 1947, ch. 356, title I, 61 Stat. 523.

June 22, 1946, ch. 445, 60 Stat. 283.

May 5, 1945, ch. 109, 59 Stat. 150.

June 28, 1944, ch. 296, 58 Stat. 444.

July 12, 1943, ch. 215, 57 Stat. 412.

July 22, 1942, ch. 516, 56 Stat. 680.

July 1, 1941, ch. 267, 55 Stat. 422.

June 25, 1940, ch. 421, 54 Stat. 546.
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Kevin Cooksy certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the small business issuer;

2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this  Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this Report;

4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this  Report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this Report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.
§ 75.211 Selection criteria for unsolicited applications. ( a ) If the Secretary considers an unsolicited application under 34 CFR 75.222(a)(2)(ii), the Secretary uses the selection criteria and factors, if any, used for the competition under which the application could have been funded.
( b ) If the Secretary considers an unsolicited application under 34 CFR 75.222(a)(2)(iii), the Secretary selects from among the criteria in § 75.210(b), and may select from among the specific factors listed under each criterion, the criteria that are most appropriate to evaluate the activities proposed in the application.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)
[62 FR 10403, Mar. 6, 1997]
MICHAEL WILSON PLC 

Michael G. Wilson (VSB No. 48927) 

12733 Storrow Road 

Henrico, Virginia 23233 

Telephone: (804) 614-8301 

mike@mgwilsonlaw.com 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

RICHMOND DIVISION 

In re: 

LECLAIRRYAN PLLC, 

Debtor. 

Chapter 7 

Civil Action No. 19-34574 

VERIFIED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL WILSON 

PLC PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY RULE 2019 

Michael Wilson PLC (the “Firm”) hereby submits this verified statement pursuant to Fed. 

R. Bankr. P. 2019 and, in support, states and represents to the Court as follows: 

1. The Firm acts as counsel to Michele Craddock (“Craddock”) with respect to certain 

unsecured claims she holds against the above-captioned debtor. 

2. The Firm acts as counsel to R.F. Technologies, Inc. (“RFT”) and Robert Noorian 

(“Noorian”; together with RFT, the “Plaintiffs”) with respect to certain unsecured claims they hold 

against the above-captioned debtor. 

3. The Firm acts as counsel to Petersburg Regency LLC (“Petersburg”) and Robert 

Harmon (“Harmon”) with respect to certain unsecured claims they hold against the abovecaptioned debtor. 

4. Each of Craddock, the Plaintiffs, Petersburg and Harmon separately requested that 

the Firm serve as their counsel in connection with these proceedings. Each of these parties has 

Case 19-34574-KRH Doc 289 Filed 12/12/19 Entered 12/12/19 09:06:51 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
2

consented to the Firm’s simultaneous representation of each of the other parties in this chapter 7 

case. 

5. The Firm may undertake additional representations of other parties in interest in 

this chapter 7 case, and the Firm reserves the right to supplement this verified statement as 

appropriate. 

I, Michael Wilson, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statement is 

true and correct to the best of my information and belief. 

 /s/ Michael Wilson 

 MICHAEL WILSON PLC 

/s/ Michael Wilson 

Michael G. Wilson (VSB #48927) 

Michael Wilson PLC 

12733 Storrow Rd. 

Henrico, VA 23233 

(804) 614-8301 

mike@mgwilsonlaw.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on December 12, 2019, I caused a copy of the foregoing to be served 

by electronic mail upon all parties receiving notice through the Court’s CM/ECF Noticing System. 

 /s/ Michael Wilson 

Case 19-34574-KRH Doc 289 Filed 12/12/19 Entered 12/12/19 09:06:51 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
Summary: No Evidence of Preferential Treatment by Non-Profit 

Executive Director 

Report Date: July 30, 2020 Report Number: 19-0616 

We investigated allegations that the former Executive Director of a non-profit organization 

provided bid information from competing vendors to a purported family member to give them 

advantage in securing a construction contract funded through a National Park Service (NPS) 

cooperative agreement. 

The Executive Director admitted to providing budget information to the two competing bidders, 

including the purported family member’s company; however, we did not find evidence she 

provided competitive bid information or otherwise gave preferential treatment to either bidder. 

We also found she was not related to the vendor in question. 

This is a summary of an investigative report we provided to the NPS Deputy Director. 

Office of Investigations | Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of the Interior | Washington, DC
### §3444. Disability of judge—(Rule)

#### See Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

Disability of judge after verdict or finding of guilt, Rule 25.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 832.)
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ForeFront Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 29, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Richard M. Gozia, Interim Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Randall J. Frapart, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our 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 ForeFront Holdings, Inc.

Dated: November 29, 2007



|                               
|-------------------------------
|/s/ Richard M. Gozia           
|Richard M. Gozia               
|Interim Chief Executive Officer
|                               
|/s/ Randall J. Frapart         
|Randall J. Frapart             
|Chief Financial Officer