alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.19

Amendment to Business Development Agreementmade this 5th day of September 2007 (the Amendment), between First Capital Business Development, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, located at 16293 East Dorado Place,
Centennial, CO 80015 (FCBD) and IPtimize, Inc., a Minnesota corporation located at 2135 S. Cherry Street, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado 80222 (IPtimize). FCBD and IPtimize are sometimes individually referred to as a
Party and collectively as the Parties.

W I T N E S S E T H:

WHEREAS, the Parties are the parties to a Business Development Agreement dated March 9, 2007 (the Agreement); and

WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Agreement to include the terms and conditions set forth in this Amendment.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, and the other good and valuable consideration hereinafter set forth, the receipt and adequacy of which
are hereby acknowledged and accepted, the Parties agree as follows:

1. Amendment to Section 4 of the Agreement. Sections 4A
and 4B of the Agreement are hereby amended to read in their entirety as follows:

4. Compensation.

A. Contract Fee. IPtimize shall pay to FCBD a monthly contract fee of $5,000 (the Contract Fee). The Contract Fee
shall be payable on the first of each month commencing on March 1, 2007, and continuing to be paid monthly through the end of the Term. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Contract Fee payments shall be accrued until the closing of IPtimizes
presently proposed round of acquisition financing in the sum of $4,000,000 (the Financing Closing) whereupon they shall be paid to date;

B. Restructuring Advisory Fee. IPtimize shall pay to FCBD cash advisory fees related to the planning, research, analysis, preparation and presentation to Candidates of restructuring actions which IPtimize, at
its election may pursue (the Advisory Fees). The Advisory Fees shall be payable as follows: (i) $30,000 payable on or before May 1, 2007, and (ii) $120,000 payable on or before July 15, 2007. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, Advisory Fee payments shall be accrued until the Financing Closing whereupon they shall be paid in full.

2.
Confirmation of the Agreement. Except as herein modified, the Parties hereby reconfirm the validity and enforceability of the Agreement.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the date first above written.



|                                        |  |                         |  |                |  |     |  |                             
|--------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- |  | -------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------
|First Capital Business Development, LLC |  |                         |  | IPtimize, Inc.
|                                        |  |                         |  |               
|BY:                                     |  | /s/ Gary J. Graham      |  |                |  | By: |  | /s/ Clinton J. Wilson       
|                                        |  | Gary J. Graham, Manager |  |                |  |     |  | Clinton J. Wilson, President
<PAGE>
                  United States Securities and Exchange Commission
                               Washington, D.C. 20549

                                    FORM 10-Q/A

                                     (Mark One)
    x      Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities
---------  Exchange Act of 1934
                 FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28,1998

or


           Transition Report Pursuant to Section 13 of 15(d) of the Securities
---------  Exchange Act of 1934
                   For the transition period from ____ to ____


                          COMMISSION FILE NUMBER: 0-014341




                           CONAM REALTY INVESTORS 5 L.P.
                           -----------------------------
                                 formerly known as
                          HUTTON/CONAM REALTY INVESTORS 5
                          -------------------------------
                EXACT NAME OF REGISTRANT AS SPECIFIED IN ITS CHARTER




          California                                      11-2712111
          ----------                                      ----------
STATE OR OTHER JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION           I.R.S. EMPLOYER OR
ORGANIZATION                                           IDENTIFICATION NO.

1764 San Diego Avenue
San Diego, Ca. 92110  Attn. Robert J. Svatos                92110-1906
--------------------------------------------                ----------
ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICES                       ZIP CODE

                              (619)-297-6771
                              --------------
               REGISTRANT'S TELEPHONE NUMBER, INCLUDING AREA CODE




Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required
to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during
the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was
required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past 90 days.
                                       Yes x    No
                                          -----   -----

<PAGE>

                         SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.


                         CONAM PROPERTY SERVICES IV, LTD.
                         General Partner of ConAm Realty Investors 5 L.P.
  
                         BY:  CONTINENTAL AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT, INC.
                              GENERAL PARTNER


Date:  April 14, 1998         BY:/s/ DANIEL J. EPSTEIN
                                     -----------------
                                     Daniel J. Epstein
                                     Director, President, and Principal
                                     Executive Officer


Date:  April 14, 1998         BY:/s/ ROBERT J. SVATOS
                                     ----------------
                                     Robert J. Svatos
                                     Vice President and Director
Part 5243 - CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS

Subpart 5243.2 - CHANGE ORDERS

5243.201 General.

5243.204 Administration.

5243.204-70 Definitization of change orders.

5243.204-70-1 Scope.

5243.204-70-7 Plans and Reports.

Subpart 5243.2 - CHANGE ORDERS

5243.201 General.

(S-90) (a) Each undefinitized change order shall include a not-to-exceed price unless the CCO waives

this requirement.

(b) The policies and procedures of DFARS 217.74 shall be applied to change orders (except value

engineering change proposals (VECPs)) to the maximum extent practicable.

(c) The use of VECPs are encouraged due to the potential savings and system improvements that

may be realized.

(1) Prompt action shall be taken to implement those VECPs deemed to be technically sound.

(2) When considering VECPs, contracting officers shall consider the impact on the projected savings

that the normal negotiation and definitization process would have versus use of an unpriced change

order. Unpriced contract modifications that implement VECPs shall:

(i) Define minimum unit cost savings, and

(ii) Define maximum development/implementation costs

5243.204 Administration.

5243.204-70 Definitization of change orders.
5243.204-70-1 Scope.

(b) Submit the required contracting officer notice to DASN(P) by email at

usn.pentagon.asstsecnavrdadc.mbx.pabt@us.navy.mil with the subject “[Activity Name] Contracting

Officer Notice pursuant to DFARS 243.204-70-1—FMS/SAP Unpriced Change Orders.”

5243.204-70-7 Plans and Reports.

See 5217.7405 for reporting requirements.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

HAROLD KELLY MURPHY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-cv-618-MEF

)

SOUTHERN ENERGY HOMES, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint

(Doc. #38) filed on May 25, 2007, it is hereby 

ORDERED that the defendant show cause in writing on or before June 6, 2007 as to

why the motion should not be granted.

DONE this the 1st day of June, 2007.

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 40 Filed 06/01/2007 Page 1 of 1
(June 10, 1969)

#### In the Matter of Michael Squitieri et al., Appellants, v. James M. Power et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondents, and Dominick A. Fusco, Respondent. In the Matter of Pasquale E. Mele, Appellant, v. James M. Power et al., Respondents, and Richard W. Heitner et al., Respondents. In the Matter of Samuel Winner et al., Appelants, v. James M. Power et al., Respondents, and Iluminada Castro, Respondent. In the Matter of William J. Waterman et al., Appellants, v. James M. Power et al., Respondents, and Mariette Fusco, Respondent. In the *752Matter of Francis H. Larkin et al., Appellants, v. James M. Power et al., Respondents, and Francis J. Kane et al., Respondents. In the Matter of Frank Garofolo et al., Appellants, v. James M. Power et al., Respondents, and Paul Spitalieri et al., Respondents. In the Matter of John C. Anarell et al., Appellants, v. James M. Power et al., Respondents, and Thomas M. De Rosa et al., Respondents. In the Matter of Dominic R. Massaro et al., Appellants, v. James M. Power et al., Respondents, and Anthony F. Rizzo et al., Respondents. In the Matter of Ralph L. Giordano et al., Appellants, v. James M. Power et al., Respondents, and Pasquale Euvino et al., Respondents. In the Matter of James Guarasci et al., Appellants, v. James M. Power et al., Respondents, and Charles A. Avarello et al., Respondents. In the Matter of Frank J. Mastandrea et al., Appellants, v. James M. Power et al., Respondents, and Dante Fusco et al., Respondents.

Orders entered June 5, 1969, appealed from unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. (See *Ramos-Lopez*v. *Heffernan,*64 N. Y. S. 2d 603.) Concur—Stevens, P. J., Eager, Tilzer, McNally and Steuer, JJ.
#### § 923.40 Expenses.

The committee is authorized to incur such expenses as the Secretary finds are reasonable and likely to be incurred by the committee to enable it to exercise its powers and perform its duties in accordance with the provisions of this part during each fiscal period. The funds to cover such expenses shall be acquired by the levying of assessments as prescribed in § 923.41.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

DAVID W. JAHN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-cv-623-MEF

)

REGINALD JAMES WASHINGTON, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

O R D E R

The court has been notified by the parties that the dispute in the above-referenced case

has been resolved. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. That the pretrial conference scheduled for October 1, 2007 and trial set for

November 5, 2007 are continued generally.

2. That the parties file a joint stipulation of dismissal on or before October 12, 2007.

DONE this 21st day of September, 2007.

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00623-MEF-SRW Document 42 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00672-WKW-WC Document 14 Filed 02/13/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### §§ 767.3-767.50 [Reserved]
Subpart 5206.2 - FULL AND OPEN

COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF

SOURCES

Parent topic: Part 5206 - COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS

5206.202 Establishing or maintaining alternative sources.

(b)(1) Determination and Findings (D&Fs) shall be signed as follows:

(i) For a proposed contract not exceeding the approval threshold at FAR 6.304(a)(3), the approval

level is the HCA, or a designee who—

(A) If a member of the armed forces, is a general or flag officer; or

(B) If a civilian, is serving in a position in the Senior Executive Service (SES).

(ii) For a proposed contract exceeding the approval threshold at FAR 6.304(a)(4), the approval level

is the NSPE. D&Fs for NSPE approval shall be submitted with a copy of the approved AS,

Streamlined Acquisition Plan (STRAP) or Management and Oversight Process for the Acquisition of

Services – Streamlined (MOPAS-S) via DASN(P) by email at

usn.pentagon.asstsecnavrdadc.mbx.pabt@us.navy.mil with the subject “[Activity Name] FAR 6.202 -

Establishing or Maintaining Alternative Sources.”
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

VANESSA BROWN,

 Appellant,

v.

SEBASTIAN VALIYAPARAMPIL,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-14-00031-CV

Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 3

of Dallas County, Texas

(TC # CC-12-04504-CV)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee 

recover from Appellant and its sureties, if any, see TEX.R.APP.P. 43.5, on the judgment and all 

costs, both in this Court and the court below for which let execution issue. This decision shall be 

certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
#### § 900.10 Certification of the transcript.

The judge shall notify the hearing clerk of the close of a hearing as soon as possible thereafter and of the time for filing written arguments, briefs, proposed findings and proposed conclusions, and shall furnish the hearing clerk with such other information as may be necessary. As soon as possible after the hearing, the judge shall transmit to the hearing clerk an original and three copies of the transcript of the testimony and the original and all copies of the exhibits not already on file in the office of the hearing clerk. He shall attach to the original transcript of testimony his certificate stating that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the transcript is a true transcript of the testimony given at the hearing except in such particulars as he shall specify; and that the exhibits transmitted are all the exhibits as introduced at the hearing with such exceptions as he shall specify. A copy of such certificate shall be attached to each of the copies of the transcript of testimony. In accordance with such certificate the hearing clerk shall note upon the official record copy, and cause to be noted on other copies, of the transcript each correction detailed therein by adding or crossing out (but without obscuring the text as originally transcribed) at the appropriate place any words necessary to make the same conform to the correct meaning, as certified by the judge. The hearing clerk shall obtain and file certifications to the effect that such corrections have been effected in copies other than the official record copy.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

 _______________________________

JAMES PETTY, #124 252 *

Plaintiff, *

v. * 2:06-CV-639-WKW

RAY B. FINEDOR, et al., *

Defendants. *

 _______________________________

ORDER

On August 24, 2006 Plaintiff filed a pleading in which he advises the court of service

addresses for Sgt. Edward Hardy. The CLERK is hereby DIRECTED to serve Sgt. Hardy

at the Troy Police Department, Elm Street, Troy, Alabama 36081, with a copy of this order

together with a copy of the complaint and the court’s July 20, 2006 order of procedure.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Sgt. Hardy shall file an answer and written report to the complaint

within forty (40) days of the filing date of this order in accordance with the court’s July 20,

2006 order of procedure. 

Plaintiff is advised that the court will not continue to monitor this case to ensure that

each of the named defendants has been served. This is Plaintiff's responsibility. Plaintiff is

cautioned that if service is not perfected on Defendant Hardy he will not be considered a

party to this cause of action and this case will proceed only against those named defendants

Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 9 Filed 08/28/2006 Page 1 of 2
2

on whom service has been perfected. 

Done this 28 day of August 2006. th

/s/ Delores R. Boyd

DELORES R. BOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 9 Filed 08/28/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### § 62.209 [Reserved]
#### § 927.100 Terms.

Each term used in this subpart shall have the same meaning as when used in the marketing order.

[70 FR 59625, Oct. 13, 2005, as amended at 71 FR 7676, Feb. 14, 2006]
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Authority:

7 U.S.C. 71-87K, 1621-1627.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 84 FR 45645, Aug. 30, 2019.

#### § 800.56 Requirements on descriptions.

Section 13 of the Act contains certain prohibitions with respect to the use of official grade designations, official marks, and other representations with respect to grain.

(a) The use of an official grade designation, with or without factor information, or of official criteria information, or of the term “official grain standards,” shall not, without additional information, be considered to be a representation that the grain was officially inspected.

(b) The use of any symbol or term listed as an official mark, at § 800.0(b)(68), with respect to grain shall be considered to be a representation of official service under the Act: Provided however, that the use of the official marks “official certificate;” “officially inspected;” “official inspection;” “officially weighed;” “official weight;” and “official weighing” shall not be considered to be a representation of official service under the Act if it is clearly shown that the activity occurred under the U.S. Warehouse Act (7 U.S.C. 241 *et seq.*): Provided further, that the use of the official mark “officially tested” with respect to grain inspection and weighing equipment shall not be considered to be a representation of testing under the Act if it is clearly shown that the equipment was tested under a State statute.

[50 FR 9982, Mar. 13, 1985]
§ 774.17 Loan application. A complete application will consist of the following: ( a ) A completed Agency application form;
( b ) Proof of a bankruptcy claim in the AgriBiotech bankruptcy proceedings;
( c ) If the applicant is a business entity, any legal documents evidencing the organization and any State recognition of the entity;
( d ) Documentation of compliance with the Agency's environmental regulations contained in part 799 of this chapter;
( e ) A balance sheet on the applicant; and
( f ) Any other additional information the Agency needs to determine the eligibility of the applicant and the application of any Federal, State or local laws.
[65 FR 76119, Dec. 6, 2000, as amended at 81 FR 51285, Aug. 3, 2016]
#### In the Matter of Louis Winkelman, Respondent, v. Department of Health of the City of New York, Appellant.

Judgment entered December 21, 1965 granting petitioner-respondent’s application in this article 78 proceeding for a judgment annulling the determination of respondent-appellant is unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $50 costs and disburse*835ments to the respondent-appellant, and the petition dismissed. When the Board of Health took the action it did, it acted well within the purview of its authority. Section 13.15 (subd. [a], par. [2]) of the New York City Health Code explicitly authorizes the board to require “ information concerning its [the applicant’s] personnel, equipment and scope of activities”. After a protracted investigation the board made a judgment that the applicant’s scope of activities was such as to preclude a proper training program. This judgment was not unreasonable. Even if the observation by Special Term were true, namely that the petitioner had been subjected to a bureaucratic “run around ”, this would not establish a clear legal right to the approval requested. Concur—Eager, J. P., Steuer, Capozzoli, McGivern and Witmer, JJ.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

AARON GRIMES,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 1:20-cv-276-AW-GRJ

SECRETARY, DEP’T OF 

CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

After Aaron Grimes was convicted of armed robbery, the Florida court 

sentenced him to life imprisonment. Decades later, Grimes came into possession of 

affidavits purportedly from the victims. The affidavits explained that Grimes was 

innocent, that the victims testified falsely at trial, and that the Gainesville Police 

Department pressured them to do so. Armed with these affidavits, Grimes sought

and received Eleventh Circuit permission to file a second § 2254 petition.

The magistrate judge then conducted appropriate proceedings. He held an 

evidentiary hearing, during which the two victims testified that Grimes did rob them 

and that they did not submit those affidavits. The magistrate judge then made a 

factual finding that the affidavits were forgeries, and he prepared a report and

recommendation concluding that the § 2254 petition should be dismissed as timebarred. ECF No. 50. There has been no objection to the report and recommendation.

Case 1:20-cv-00276-AW-GRJ Document 51 Filed 09/28/22 Page 1 of 2
2

Having carefully considered the matter, I conclude that the report and 

recommendation should be adopted, and I now incorporate it into this order. The 

clerk will enter judgment that says, “The § 2254 petition is dismissed as time 

barred.” A certificate of appealability is DENIED. The clerk will close the file.

Last, I agree with the magistrate judge that the matter should be referred to 

the United States Attorney for this District. The clerk will serve a copy of this order 

on the United States Attorney.

SO ORDERED on September 28, 2022. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00276-AW-GRJ Document 51 Filed 09/28/22 Page 2 of 2
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2895 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Imidacloprid pesticides. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 19, 2006 

Mr. BURR introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Imidacloprid 

pesticides. 

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

3 SECTION 1. IMIDACLOPRID PESTICIDES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.02.52 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Imidacloprid pesticides) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/ 

7 2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2009’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•S 2895 IS 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
§ 93.4 Analytical methods. ( a ) The majority of analytical methods for citrus products are found in the Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC INTERNATIONAL, Volumes I & II, AOAC INTERNATIONAL, 481 North Frederick Avenue, Suite 500, Gaithersburg, MD 20877-2417.
( b ) Other analytical methods for citrus products may be used as approved by the AMS Deputy Administrator, Science and Technology (S&T).
[65 FR 64317, Oct. 26, 2000]