alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Mineralresources of the Black Rock Wilderness Study Area, Graham County, Arizona**** 
SuDocNumber:I19.3:1703-C
ItemNumber:0620(online)
CGPsystem Number:000594859
 
Report
Plate
 **
Exhibit












EXHIBIT 10.30
SECOND AMENDMENT TO
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AND LEASING AGREEMENT
THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AND LEASING AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”), is made and entered into as of February 27, 2018, by and among GLOBAL NET LEASE, INC. (formerly American Realty Capital Global Daily Net Asset Value Trust, Inc.), a Maryland corporation (the “Company”), GLOBAL NET LEASE OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P. (formerly American Realty Capital Global Operating Partnership, L.P.), a Delaware limited partnership (the “OP”), and GLOBAL NET LEASE PROPERTIES, LLC (formerly American Realty Capital Global Properties, LLC), a Delaware limited liability company (the “Manager”).


WHEREAS the parties hereto entered into that certain (i) Property Management and Leasing Agreement, dated as of April 20, 2012 and (ii) First Amendment to Property Management and Leasing Agreement, dated as of October 27, 2017 (collectively, the “Agreement”); and


WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement as provided herein.


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promise contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows:


		
	1.
	Definition of “Territory”.  The defined term “Territory” set forth in Section 1.18 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced as follows:




1.18.  “Territory” means any country, providence, territory, commonwealth, possession or other jurisdiction in which the Company owns real property.
		
	2.
	Miscellaneous. Except as expressly modified hereby the terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect as written.  Any capitalized term used in this Amendment and not otherwise defined herein, shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in the Agreement.  This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same agreement, and shall become a binding agreement when one or more counterparts have been signed by each of the parties and delivered to the other party.  Signatures on this Amendment which are transmitted by electronically shall be valid for all purposes, however any party shall deliver an original signature of this Amendment to the other party upon request.




[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]















IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment as of the day and year first set forth above.
GLOBAL NET LEASE, INC.
		
	By:
	/s/ James L. Nelson


Name:  James L. Nelson
Title:    Chief Executive Officer and President


GLOBAL NET LEASE OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.
		
	By:
	Global Net Lease, Inc.


its General Partner


		
	By:
	/s/ James L. Nelson


Name:  James L. Nelson
Title:    Chief Executive Officer and President


GLOBAL NET LEASE PROPERTIES, LLC


		
	By:
	/s/ Michael Anderson


Name:  Michael Anderson
Title:    Authorized Signatory










[Signature Page to Second Amendment to Property Management and Leasing Agreement]
#### Callaway *v.*Beauchamp *et al.*

Atkinson, J.

1. In order to authorize this court to reverse a judgment

allowing an amendment to pleading, the record must distinctly disclose, not only that objection to the allowance of such amendment was made at the time the same was allowed, but also the ground of such objection. *McCowan*v. *Brooks,*113 *Ga.*532 (4), 533 (39 S. E. 115).

2. A ground of a motion for new trial, complaining of the admission of documentary evidence over stated objections, which does not set forth the document in form or substance, is incomplete, and fails to set forth any question for decision. *Stewart*v. *Bank,*100 *Ga.*496 (2), 501 (28 S. E. 249), *Stewart*v. *Randall,*138 *Ga.*796 (5), 797 (76 S. E. 352).

3. In an action of complaint for land, where the plaintiff relied on prescriptive title, ancient deeds _ purporting to convey the land, not connected with- the plaintiff’s chain of deeds, were inadmissible at his instance as tending to illustrate the good faith of his possession, though offered in connection with extraneous parol evidence to the effect that such deeds were included among a number of other ancient, though more recent deeds, handed down to him 'as muniments of title by his predecessors.

4. Where title to land is acquired by seven years adverse possession under color of title, such title can not be lost by -the holder thereof by abandonment. *Tarver*v. *Deppen,*132 *Ga.*798 (7), 799 (65 S. E. 177, 24 L. R. A. (H. S.) 1161). Accordingly, in an action of complaint for land, where the plaintiff relied for recovery on prescriptive title, and the evidence in his favor tended to show that after he had acquired prescriptive title he moved away from the State, leaving a tenant in possession, and the defendants relied on prescriptive title based on adverse possession alleged to have commenced after the departure of the plaintiff, *208and to have run for the prescriptive period before the institution of the suit, and it was an issue whether the tenants' residing on the property were those of the plaintiff or those of the defendants, it was error requiring the grant of a new trial for the court to refuse, on written request, to charge the principle above announced.

July 15, 1913.

Complaint for land. Before M. C. Edward's, judge pro hac vice. Quitman superior court. August 24, 1912.

*Smith &*Miller, for plaintiff. *B. T.*Oastellow, for defendants.

5. All other requests to charge were covered by the general charge, in so far as they accurately stated principles of law applicable to the case. And while certain portions of the charge, which were’complained of in the motion for new trial, may not have been entirely accurate, none of them were erroneous for any reason assigned.

6. As the case will be returned for another trial, no ruling will be made on the assignment of error based on the general grounds of the motion for new trial, and those which complain particularly that the verdict was contrary to the charge of the court.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         817,063
<SECURITIES>                                 2,213,768
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,601,288
<PP&E>                                       1,503,267
<DEPRECIATION>                               (283,688)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,434,635
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,082,125
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        36,917
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,315,593
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,434,635
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               157,050
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,618,896
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,461,846
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,461,846
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,461,846
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)


</TABLE>
# SUBCHAPTER F - SPECIAL CATEGORIES OF CONTRACTING

- PART 935 - RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTING 
- PART 936 - CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS 
- PART 937 - SERVICE CONTRACTING 
- PART 939 - ACQUISITION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 
- PART 941 - ACQUISITION OF UTILITY SERVICES 

- PART 935 - RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTING    - 935.010   Scientific and technical reports.
  - 935.070   Research misconduct.
  - 935.071   Contract clause.
- PART 936 - CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS    - Subpart 936.2 - Special Aspects of Contracting for Construction     - 936.202-70   [Reserved]
    - 936.202-71   Specifications.
  - Subpart 936.6 - Architect-Engineer Services     - 936.602-70   DOE selection criteria.
    - 936.609-3   Work oversight in architect-engineer contracts.
  - Subpart 936.7 [Reserved]
  - Subpart 936.71 - Inspection and Acceptance     - 936.7100   Scope of subpart.
    - 936.7101   Construction contracts.
- PART 937 - SERVICE CONTRACTING    - Subpart 937.2 - Advisory and Assistance Services     - 937.204   Guidelines for determining availability of personnel.
  - Subpart 937.70 - Protective Services Contracting     - 937.7040   Contract clauses.
- PART 939 - ACQUISITION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY    - Subpart 939.70 - Implementing DOE Policies and Procedures     - 939.7000   Scope.
    - 939.7001   [Reserved]
    - 939.7002   Contractor acquisition of information technology.
- PART 941 - ACQUISITION OF UTILITY SERVICES    - Subpart 941.2 - Acquiring Utility Services     - 941.201-70   DOE Directives.
    - 941.201-71   Use of subcontracts.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,672,355
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,127,179
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     545,176
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,672,355
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,406,189
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              69,813
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,476,002)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,476,002)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,476,002)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (14.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (14.05)


</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**

|   | (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 result of operations of the                  Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                            |                                                                                |                             |
|---------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                            |                                                                                |
|                       |                                                                           |                        |
|                            |                                                                                | /s/                Allen Salmasi |
|                            | Allen                  SalmasiChief                  Executive Officer andPresident |
| March                  30, 2007 |                                                                                |

----
# 52.214-32 [Reserved]

**Parent topic:**52.214 [Reserved]
§ 915.115 Nomination procedure. ( a ) Any grower who resides outside the production area and desires to be represented in a nomination meeting by a duly authorized agent and to have such grower's vote cast by such agent in the nomination and election of nominees for grower members and alternate members to fill positions on the Avocado Administrative Committee, as provided in § 915.22(b)(2), shall submit to the committee, not later than January 20, a written statement containing the following: ( 1 ) Name of grower;
( 2 ) Mailing address;
( 3 ) Location of each avocado grove (either legal or from established landmarks);
( 4 ) Number of avocado trees owned;
( 5 ) Number of 55-pound units of avocados marketed to date during the current season;
( 6 ) Name of the handler of the fruit marketed;
( 7 ) Authorization, including the name and address, of the person who is to represent said grower at the nomination meeting.
( b ) Any grower who has not filed the statement as prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section must be present at the nomination meeting to be eligible to have his vote counted in connection with the nomination and election of nominees.
( c ) Any grower who, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, has authorized an agent to cast such grower's vote, may rescind such authorization by appearing at the nomination meeting and exercising his right to vote in person.
[21 FR 78, Jan. 5, 1956. Redesignated at 26 FR 12751, Dec. 30, 1961, as amended at 48 FR 2519, Jan. 20, 1983]
160 So.2d 596

#### Jeff JONES, Sr., and Ethel Jones v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, Halliburton Company and Meredith S. Hailey.

No. 47086.

Feb. 24, 1964.

Court of Appeal, Third Circuit.

159 So.2d 5.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
Exhibit 35.1

                                                          [LOGO] IndymacBank(SM)


                       REG AB 1123 Statement of Compliance

I am an authorized officer for IndyMac Bank, F.S.B, the servicer for the
transaction listed below and I certify:

a)    A review of IndyMac Bank's activities during the reporting period and of
      its performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made
      under my supervision.

b)    To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, except as set forth
      below IndyMac Bank has fulfilled all of its obligations under the
      agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.

c)    None


                                By: /s/ Robert M. Abramian
                                    ----------------------
                                    Robert M. Abramian
                                    First Vice President
                                    Home Loan Servicing
                                    Investor Reporting
                                    Indymac Bank


                                By: /s/ Barbara Perez
                                    ----------------------
                                    Barbara Perez
                                    Senior Vice President
                                    Indymac Bank



Prepared for:   Deutsche Bank

Date:           February 28, 2007

Ref:            6004 - INDX 2006-AR31 (ML)



                                                             www.indymacbank.com


             460 Sierra Madre Villa Ave., Pasadena, CA 91107   Tel: 626.535.5555
#### In the Matter of Anonymous, an Attorney.

Submitted September 17, 2007;

decided November 20, 2007

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. Motion for leave to appeal denied.
#### § 966.91 Separability.

If any provision of this subpart is declared invalid, or the applicability thereof to any person, circumstance, or thing is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this subpart, or the applicability thereof to any other person, circumstance, or thing, shall not be affected thereby.
Exhibit
32.1





Statement of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350








In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Highlands Bankshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period
ending March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, as the chief executive officer
of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1)           The
Report 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.










/s/ C.E.
      PorterC.E.
      PorterChief
      Executive OfficerMay
      13, 2010







27
SUBPART 6.2 — FULL AND OPEN

COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF

SOURCES

Parent topic: PART 6 –– COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS

6.202 Establishing or maintaining alternative sources.

(b)(1) Approval authority for determinations and findings (D&Fs) under this subpart follows:

Estimated Value of Justification Approving Official ofD&F

$750K and below Contracting Officer

Over $750K to $15M COCO

Over $15M to $100M HCA

Over $100M SPE

See DFARS 206.2 for D&F format. Legal Counsel and Procuring Activity Competition Advocate

(PACA) or Agency Competition Advocate (ACA) coordination is required before approval. Provide the

PACA with a copy of the approved D&F.
#### § 985.141 Assessment rate.

On and after June 1, 2020, an assessment rate of $0.14 per pound is established for Far West spearmint oil. Unexpended funds may be carried over as a reserve.

[85 FR 41328, July 10, 2020]
**Exhibit
      32.1**





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      ss.1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Solely
      for the purposes of complying with, and the extent required by 18 U.S.C. 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
      undersigned certifies, in his capacity as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
      Financial Officer of Beicang Iron & Steel, Inc., that, to his knowledge, the
      Quarterly Report of the company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
      2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the report
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the company’s financial condition and
      results of operations.




May
      21, 2007


/s/ Beicang
              HouBeicang
                Hou
              Chief
                Executive Officer
              Chief
                Financial Officer
#### FITZGERALD, Respondent v. MANHATTAN RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 25, 1906.)

Action by William Fitzgerald against the Manhattan Railway. Company. J. H. Adams, for appellant. E. J. McCroffin, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment and order reversed, and new trial ordered, costs to appellant to abide event, unless plainti~ stipulates to reduce judgment as entered, Including costs, to $2,203.40. in which event judgment as so reduced and order.affirmed, without costs. Settle order on notice.
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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JOSE LUIS MENDOZA-NARANJO,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-50487

D.C. No. 3:11-cr-04492-BEN

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 26, 2012** 

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Jose Luis Mendoza-Naranjo appeals from the two-year sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United

States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

FILED

JUN 29 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-50487

§ 1291, and we affirm.

Mendoza-Naranjo contends that the district court procedurally erred by

failing to consider the Sentencing Guidelines, failing to consider all of the 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and not adequately explaining the basis for its

upward variance from the Guidelines range. The record belies these contentions. 

The district court considered the Guidelines and the section 3553(a) factors, and

adequately explained the sentence imposed. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d

984, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Mendoza-Naranjo also contends that his above-Guidelines sentence is

substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to satisfy the

purposes of section 3553(a). The sentence imposed is substantively reasonable in

light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3553(a) sentencing factors. 

See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

AFFIRMED.