alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
First Amendment to Ground Lease



 Exhibit 10.26 
  
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO GROUND LEASE 
  
 This First Amendment to Ground Lease (“Amendment”) is made and entered into effective as of the 15th day of January, 2004 by and between Landry’s Management, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (“Landlord”), and
610 Loop Venture, L.L.C., a Texas limited liability company (“Tenant”). 
  
 WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant entered into a Ground Lease Agreement (“Ground Lease”) effective as of the 12th day of May, 1999; and 
  
 WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant desire to extend the primary term of the Ground Lease. 
  
 NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is whereby acknowledged, the parties hereto
agree as follows: 
  

	1.	Paragraph 1(a) of the Ground Lease is hereby amended to change the termination date from May 31st, 2004 to May 31st, 2009. 

  

	2.	Except as provided for in this Amendment, the Ground Lease and all other terms contained therein shall remain in full force and effect. 

  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to be
effective as of the date provided hereinabove. 
  

			
	 LANDLORD:
 Landry’s
Management, L.P.,
 a Delaware corporation
  
 By:   Landry’s G.P., Inc.,
 a Delaware corporation,
 general partner

		
	By:	 	 
	 Name: Joe Max Taylor
 Title: Authorized Signature



  

			
	 MANAGER:
 610 Loop Venture,
L.L.C.,
 a Texas limited liability company

		
	By:	 	 
	 Name: Tilman J. Fertitta
 Title: Manager
|   | 1. |   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                    |
|--------|----|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | 2. |   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

|                  | India Globalization Capital, Inc. |                                                                                                                                                                                   |
|-----------------------|-----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  |                              |                                                                                                                                                                                   |   |
| Date: August 11, 2009 | By:                               | /s/ Ram Mukunda                            |   |
|                  |                              | Ram Mukunda                                                                                                                                                                            |   |
|                  |                              | Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive Officer)                                                                                                               |   |
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Haydee Silva TAMAYO, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 06-50652.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 13, 2007 *.

Filed Aug. 22; 2007.

*435Steven De Salvo, USSD—Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Martin G. Molina, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Haydee Silva Tamayo appeals from the 48-month sentence imposed after her guilty-plea conviction for importing cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Tamayo contends that the district court erred by denying a minor role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 because the court did not compare her conduct against the conduct of the other participants in the offense. We disagree. The district court judge compared Tamayo’s actions vis-a-vis her recruiters and also concluded that he did not have any additional information about any larger drag organization whereby he could analyze her role.

Moreover, the district court judge found that Tamayo knowingly brought into the United States substantial quantities of narcotics on six occasions. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err by denying Tamayo a minor role downward adjustment. *See United States v. Cantrell,*433 F.3d 1269, 1283-84 (9th Cir.2006).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 23.1






CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-46766, 333-62206, 333-105507, 333-124295, and 333-153370) of our report dated March 31, 2010 relating to our audits of the consolidated financial statements of ANTs software inc. included in the 2009 annual report on Form 10-K. Our report contains an emphasis of a matter paragraph regarding substantial doubt as to the ability of the Company to continue as a going concern.





/s/ Weiser LLP



New York, NY

March 31, 2010
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ernest Calhoun, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered January 7, 1977, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal also brings up for review the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress certain statements. Case remanded to Criminal Term to hear and report in accordance with the following memorandum and appeal held in abeyance in the interim. It is clear that when the defendant was handcuffed and taken to the police station he was arrested and therefore "seized” within the contemplation of the Fourth Amendment (see *Dunaway v New York,*442 US 200). Nevertheless, no determination was ever made as to the legality of the arrest. Instead, the scope of the pretrial *Huntley*hearing was limited exclusively to the issue of whether the defendant had knowingly and intelligently waived his *Miranda*rights. The court held that the defendant’s detention was not an arrest and, consequently, the People did not develop proof, and the court did not rule, on the question of whether the detention was supported by the requisite probable cause. A statement, voluntary under Fifth Amendment standards, will nevertheless be suppressed if it has been obtained through the exploitation of an illegal arrest *(Brown v Illinois,*422 US 590). On the record before us, we are unable to resolve the issue of the admissibility of the defendant’s statements. Accordingly, we remand for a hearing to determine whether the defendant’s arrest was supported by probable cause. If the trial court finds that the arrest was improper, it must then determine whether the defendant’s statements must be excluded as the fruit of an illegal detention or whether there was sufficient attenuation to sustain the admissibility of the statements (see *People v Havelka,*45 NY2d 636, 642-643). Mollen, P. J., Damiani, Mangano and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7133

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL WENDELL HAIRSTON, a/k/a Godzilla,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (4:06-cr-00018-jlk)

Submitted: March 27, 2008 Decided: April 1, 2008

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Wendell Hairston, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew

Bassford, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael Wendell Hairston appeals the district court’s

orders denying his motion for transcripts at government expense and

subsequent motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. See United States v.

Hairston, No. 4:06-cr-00018-jlk (W.D. Va. June 21, 2007 & July 16,

2007). We deny Hairston’s motion for transcripts at government

expense. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# CI2021384EN.01000101.xml

| 22.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 384/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 384/1

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 21 September 2021

adopting the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 4 of the European Union for the financial year 2021

(2021/C 384 I/01)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314 thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,

Having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (1), and in particular Article 44 thereof,

Whereas:

| — | the Union’s budget for the financial year 2021 was definitively adopted on 18 December 2020 (2); |
| --- | --- |

—

the Union’s budget for the financial year 2021 was definitively adopted on 18 December 2020 (2);

| — | on 2 July 2021, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 4 to the general budget for the financial year 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

on 2 July 2021, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 4 to the general budget for the financial year 2021;

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The Council’s position on draft amending budget No 4 of the European Union for the financial year 2021 was adopted on 21 September 2021.

The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council’s website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/

Done at Brussels, 21 September 2021.

For the Council

The President

G. DOVŽAN

---

(1)  OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 93, 17.3.2021, p. 1.

2

---
#### § 3560.462 Money laundering.

The Agency will act in accordance with U.S. Code Title 18, part I, chapter 95, section 1956(c)(7)(D).
# Search Census Archive

Home2002

## Maryland

**Census Year:** 2002

**Within:** Volume 1: Geographic Area Series

**

### 						References and Summary					

**

### 						Chapter 1: State Data					

**

### 						Chapter 2: County Data					

**

### 						State and County Profiles					

**

### 						Appendices					

### Other Years

#### 				2012			

#### 				2007			

#### 				2002			

#### 				1997			

#### 				1992			

#### 				1987			

#### 				1982			

#### 				1978			

#### 				1974			

#### 				1969			

#### 				1964			

#### 				1959			

#### 				1954			

#### 				1950			

#### 				1945			

#### 				1940			

#### 				1935			

#### 				1930			

#### 				1925			

#### 				1920			

#### 				1910			

#### 				1900			

#### 				1890			

#### 				1880			

#### 				1870			

- Home
- Login

- Home
- Login

repliche rolex orologigenți falsereplique breitling

**Partners:**

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)

Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell UniversityUnited States Department of Agriculture

**Developed & supported by:**

**Albert R. Mann Library****Cornell University****Ithaca, NY 14853-4301**Phone: **(607) 255-5406**Email: **usda-help@cornell.edu**
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**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 theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of 155 East Tropicana, LLC, a Nevadalimited-liability company and 155 East Tropicana Finance Corp., a Nevadacorporation (collectively, the “Company”) for the three months ended September 30,2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), Neil G. Kiefer, as President and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                 The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                 The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Neil G. Kiefer      |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Neil G. Kiefer,         |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |
| November 13, 2009  |   |

 

 

The foregoing certificationsare being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and are not being filedas part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 

----
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSome implications of the isotropic momentarily frozen assumptions for the SPAN-MAT programPotential tests using turbulence velocity histories measured in the SPAN-MAT Program are outlined to determine validity of the homogeneous, momentarily frozen assumptions for the vertical turbulence velocity component and the homogeneous, isotropic, momentarily frozen assumptions for the horizontal turbulence velocity components. In addition, methods are reviewed for prediction of the crosscorrelation function between any two spatially separated turbulence velocity components using the homogeneous, isotropic, momentarily frozen assumptions and measurements of the transverse and longitudinal turbulence velocity components.Document ID19900002388Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsMark, W. D.*(Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc. Cambridge, MA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJune 1, 1986Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-181937NAS 1.26:181937BBN-TM-938Accession Number90N11704Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS1-16521PROJECT: RTOP 505-63-21-04Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900002388.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
| 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. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      May 7, 2009 | By:    | /s/  Kolja      Rockov                         |
|-----------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|                        |   | Kolja      Rockov                                        |
|                        |   | Executive      Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7072

DANA S. GRAHAM,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN OF THE AUGUSTA CORRECTIONAL CENTER;

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.

(CA-91-752)

Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 4, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dana S. Graham, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr.,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by a

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994).

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the magistrate judge's order* denying Appellant's motion for relief from a judgment denying relief on his

petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the magistrate

judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Graham v. Warden, No. CA-91-752

(E.D. Va. June 19, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 99.1




				Exhibit 99(i)

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

         In connection with  the Annual  Report  of  Nutek, Inc. (the "Company")
on  Form  10-KSB  for  the  year  ended  December 31, 2003  as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date  therein specified (the "Report")
"Report"),  I,  Murray N. Conradie, Chief  Executive  Officer  of  the  Company,
certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted  pursuant to  Section  906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies  with the requirements of  Section  13(a)
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.

                                     /s/ Murray N. Conradie
                                     ------------------------------------------

                                    MURRAY N. CONRADIE, Chief Executive Officer

Dated: March 30, 2004
II 

Calendar No. 479 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2228 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

2404 Race Street, Jonesboro, Arkansas, as the ‘‘Hattie W. Caraway 

Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 31, 2006 

Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself and Mr. PRYOR) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

JUNE 22, 2006 

Reported by Ms. COLLINS, without amendment 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 2404 Race Street, Jonesboro, Arkansas, as 

the ‘‘Hattie W. Caraway Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. HATTIE W. CARAWAY POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 2404 Race Street, Jonesboro, ArVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:22 Jun 24, 2006 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2228.RS S2228

bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 2228 RS

1 kansas, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Hattie W. 

2 Caraway Post Office’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Hattie W. Caraway 

7 Post Office’’. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS

bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Calendar No. 479 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2228 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States PostPost Office’’. Jonesboro, Arkansas, as the ‘‘Hattie W. Caraway al Service located at 2404 Race Street, 

JUNE 22, 2006 

Reported without amendment 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
#### § 3011.5 Appeals.

Any person whose initial request is denied in whole or in part may appeal that denial, in accordance with 7 CFR 1.6(e) and 1.8, to the Director, Office of Finance and Management, USDA, Room 117-W, Administration Building, 14th and Independence Ave., Washington, DC 20250-9000.
#### Robert J. Zeman, Respondent, v Frances Zeman, Appellant. (Action No. 1.) Bently Realty, Inc., Respondent, v Robert Zeman, Respondent, and Frances Zeman, Appellant. (Action No. 2.)

In a matrimonial action, defendant Frances Zeman appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated June 15, 1979, which denied her motion to consolidate the matrimonial action with a pending District Court action to recover a brokerage commission, and (2) as limited by her brief, from so much of a further order of the same court, dated July 25, 1979, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination. Appeal from the order dated June 15, 1979 dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements. That order was superseded by the order granting reargument. Order dated July 25, 1979 affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. On the record before us, we cannot say that Special Term abused its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to consolidate. The action for a brokerage commission was not so related to the matrimonial action as to present significant common questions of law or fact. (Cf. *Perlmutter v Perlmutter,*65 AD2d 601.) Moreover, consolidation here would result in substantial delay with respect to the action for the commission, which is presently ready for trial. (See *Adler v Adler,*57 AD2d 1014.) Mollen, P. J., Titone, O’Connor, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23
                                   ----------


Consent of Independent Accountants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-10847),  Registration  Statement on Form S-8 (No.
33-87064),  Registration  Statement on Form S-8 (No.  33-76864) and Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No.  333-42329) of Advanced  Machine  Vision  Corporation
(formerly Applied Laser Systems or ARC Capital) of our report dated February 29,
2000 relating to the financial  statements  and  financial  statement  schedule,
which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.




PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Portland, Oregon
March 30, 2000