alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.3



 Exhibit 10.3 

AMENDMENT TO REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT 

THIS AMENDMENT TO REAL ESTATES PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is made as of April 7, 2017, by and between
MONTGOMERY STERLING, L.L.C., an Illinois limited liability company, as Seller, and S.R. JACOBSON DEVELOPMENT CORP., a Michigan corporation, as Purchaser. 

WHEREAS, Seller and Purchaser entered into a certain Real Estates Purchase And Sale Agreement, dated as of January 10, 2017 (the
“Agreement”), pursuant to which Seller agreed to sell, and Purchaser agreed to purchase, that certain real property located in the Village of Montgomery (“Village”), County of Kendal and State of Illinois with Parcel
Identification Numbers 03-02-203-002, 03-02-202-001, 03-02-204-001 and 03-02-100-028 (the “Property”). 
 WHEREAS, the
Inspection Period will expire on April 10, 2017, and the parties wish to extend the Inspection Period pursuant to the terms of this Amendment. 

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree the
Agreement is hereby amended as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Paragraph 3.D. of the Agreement is hereby amended to increase the Inspection Period from ninety (90) days to one hundred and ten (110) days and therefore it will expire on April 30,
2017. This extension is made to allow time for the Village to hold a Board meeting to make a formal decision regarding the Village’s Ordinance that governs elevator requirements. If the Village amends its Ordinance such that elevators are
not required for buildings with three (3) stories, then the parties agree to negotiate a further amendment to the Agreement to adjust the critical dates; however, the Closing Date shall not be later than December 31, 2017.


  

	 	2.	Balance of Terms. Except as set forth herein, the Agreement remains unmodified and in full force and effect. 

  

	 	3.	Miscellaneous. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, and by separate parties hereon on separate counterparts, and all of such counterparts taken together shall constitute one and the same
Amendment. This Amendment may be executed and delivered by facsimile or electronic mail in PDF format. The section headings set forth in this Amendment are for convenience of reference only, and do not define, limit or construe the contents of such
sections. 

 The parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above. 

 

									
	SELLER:	 		 	PURCHASER:
			
	MONTGOMERY STERLING, L.L.C.	 		 	S.R. JACOBSON DEVELOPMENT CORP.
					
	/s/	 	   GUADALUPE GRIFFIN
	 		 	/s/	 	   S.R. JACOBSON DEVELOPMENT CORP.

	By:	 	  Guadalupe Griffin	 		 	By:	 	  Emmanuel Kniahynycky
	Its:	 	  Senior Vice President	 		 	Its:	 	  Vice President
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

 ORDER

Page - 1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JOHNATHAN LUTHER HILL,

 Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Case No. C05-5621 RBL

 CR95-174 RBL

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon several motions filed by the

Petitioner/Defendant.

Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court rules as follows:

On March 23, 2006 this Court entered an Order dismissing Defendant’s motion as a second or

successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. [Dkt. #4, C05-5621 RBL]. On May 4, 2006 Defendant filed a

Notice of Appeal of that Order and the Judgment thereon. He now seeks to withdraw that Notice of Appeal

[Dkt. #9] and seeks to vacate the Court’s prior judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) [Dkt. #’s 7, 10]. The

Court will construe the Defendant’s Motions to Vacate as Motions for Reconsideration and will address them

accordingly.

Because the Defendant’s appeal has not yet been processed due to the lack of a certificate of

appealability, the Court will GRANT Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw Notice of Appeal [Dkt. #9].

Case 3:05-cv-05621-RBL Document 13 Filed 07/07/06 Page 1 of 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

 ORDER

Page - 2

The Defendant seeks to vacate the prior judgment arguing fraud and due process violations. As stated,

the motions are in essence motions for reconsideration. Defendant has raised no factual or legal argument

which convinces this Court that its prior Order was in error. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Vacate

(Denial of Due Process) [Dkt. #7] and Motion to Vacate (Extrinsic Fraud) [Dkt. #10] are DENIED.

To the extent necessary, and for the reasons stated in this Order and prior Order [Dkt. #4], the Court

declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability because the Defendant has failed to make a “substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing

pro se.

Dated this 6th day of July, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05621-RBL Document 13 Filed 07/07/06 Page 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; TRND 3 Chemistry Manufacturing and Controls for Drug Products.                    

*Date:*                         November 29-30, 2023.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                              ( print page 67784)    

*Place:*                         National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Room 1068, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Marilyn Moore-Hoon, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Room 1068, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827-9087,                         *mooremar@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, B—Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 26, 2023.

Melanie J. Pantoja, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-21597 Filed 9-29-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 JAN-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                    FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                      OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                              1,677,702
<SECURITIES>                                          526,720
<RECEIVABLES>                                         892,752
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                         2,021,453
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      761,206
<PP&E>                                              5,376,549
<DEPRECIATION>                                      1,413,497
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     10,175,332
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       0
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                4,891
<OTHER-SE>                                         10,835,857
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       10,175,332
<SALES>                                             4,076,242
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    4,076,242
<CGS>                                               1,584,062
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       1,584,062
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    1,028,757
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    1,028,757
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      3,797
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (852,025)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          (95,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (742,825)
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                                0
<EPS-BASIC>                                             (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (0.16)


</TABLE>
Table 4. Biodiesel Producers and Production Capacity by State, December 2013

State Number of Producers Annual Production Capacity

(million gallons per year)

Alabama 2 46

Alaska - -

Arizona 1 2

Arkansas 3 85

California 9 61

Colorado - -

Connecticut 3 13

Delaware - -

District of Columbia - -

Florida 1 2

Georgia 3 16

Hawaii 1 6

Idaho 1 1

Illinois 5 167

Indiana 2 104

Iowa 10 290

Kansas 1 1

Kentucky 4 50

Louisiana 1 12

Maine 1 1

Maryland - -

Massachussetts 1 1

Michigan 2 18

Minnesota 4 107

Mississippi 3 105

Missouri 8 188

Montana 1 0

Nebraska - -

Nevada 1 1

New Hampshire 1 4

New Jersey - -

New Mexico - -

New York 2 20

North Carolina 4 10

North Dakota 1 85

Ohio 3 67

Oklahoma 2 45

Oregon 2 18

Pennsylvania 4 87

Rhode Island 1 1

South Carolina 2 40

South Dakota - -

Tennessee 1 2

Texas 14 431

Utah 1 10

Vermont - -

Virginia 3 9

Washington 3 104

West Virginia - -

Wisconsin 3 29

Wyoming - -

U.S. Total 115 2,236

- = No data reported.

Totals may not equal the sum of components due to independent rounding.

Number of producers is a count of plants with operable capacity during the report month.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-22M "Monthly Biodiesel Production Survey"

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Monthly Biodiesel Production Report
Before the First Division,

January 12, 1955

No. 58684.

petition 6864-R (Buffalo).

#### Carey *&*Skinner, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Because of the special nature of the imported electrotypes, it appeared that there was no dispute that the correct basis of value to be applied thereto was cost of production, as defined in section 402 (f). The electrotypes were manufactured in Canada with the use of plates which had been exported previously from the United States to Canada and were supplied gratuitously to the Canadian manufacturer. In calculating the cost of production, the petitioner included the cost of the plates, but did not include any amount for overhead and profit, with relation to the cost of the plates, nor the cost of transporting the plates from the United States to Canada. Upon appraisement, these items were included in the value returned by the appraiser. On the record presented, it was held that the undervaluation was a result of an honest difference of opinion between the petitioner and the appraiser and that there was no intent to defraud the revenue of the United States or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
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 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

KURT M. DEPEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SKOOKUM INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5297FDB

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause of January 18, 2006. In

accordance with that Order, this cause of action is DISMISSED for failure to respond to the Court’s

Orders. SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 1st day of March, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05297-FDB Document 8 Filed 03/01/06 Page 1 of 1
FIRST
AMENDMENT TO CONSTRUCTION LOAN AGREEMENT


 


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT
(the “Amendment”) is entered into by and between FIFTH THIRD BANK (the “Lender”) and 23HUNDRED,
LLC (the “Borrower”).


 


WITNESSETH:


 


WHEREAS:


 


A.           Borrower
and Lender entered into a Construction Loan Agreement (the “Loan Agreement”) on October 18, 2012, providing
a construction loan in the principal amount of $23,569,000.00.


 


B.           
Borrower and Lender have agreed to amend the Loan Agreement on the terms and conditions provided hereinafter.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the premises, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,
it is agreed as follows:


 


1.          Section
6.11(b) is hereby amended by deleting the first sentence thereof and substituting in its place the following:


 


“During
construction of the Project, Development Fees will be restricted to fifty percent (50%) of the Approved Budget line item and shall
be dispersed in seventeen (17) equal monthly installments during the Construction Period”.


 


2.          Except
as amended hereby, the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 


3.          Borrower
represents and warrants that the terms of this Amendment have been duly authorized and approved by duly adopted resolutions, and
that the party executing this Amendment on behalf of the Borrower has been authorized to do so.


 


4.          This
Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be the original, and all of which together
shall be considered one and the same document.


 



    	 



    	 



    

  


EXECUTED by the undersigned
to be effective as of November ___, 2012.


 


	 	LENDER:
	 	 
	 	FIFTH THIRD BANK
	 	 


 


	 	By:	/s/ Grady E. Thurman
	 	 	 
	 	Title:	Vice President


 


	 	BORROWER:
	 	 
	 	23HUNDRED, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company


 


	 	By:	BR Stonehenge 23Hundred JV, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, as its sole Member and
    Manager


 


	 	By:	Stonehenge 23Hundred JV Member, LLC, a
	 	 	Tennessee limited liability company, as its Manager


 


	 	By:	Stonehenge 23Hundred Manager, LLC, a
	 	 	Tennessee limited liability company, as its
	 	 	Manager


 


	 	By:	Stonehenge Real Estate Group, LLC, a
	 	 	Georgia limited liability company,
	 	 	as its Manager


 


	 	By:	/s/ Todd Jackovich
	 	 	Todd Jackovich, as its Manager
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S. C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Annual Report of Magnolia Solar Corporation, (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-K /A for year ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Dr. Ashok K. Sood, President and Chief Executive 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 my knowledge:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: December 23, 2013





/s/ Dr. Ashok K. SoodDr. Ashok K. Sood

President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
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

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

WEI TANG CHEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5275RBL

ORDER ADOPTING

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

 The Court, having reviewed Plaintiffs’ complaint, the Report and Recommendation of

Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold, objections to the Report and Recommendation, if any, and the

remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE prior to service. Plaintiff

may not challenge his current conviction in a civil rights action.

(3) Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, counsel for any defendants

who have appeared, and to the Hon. J. Kelley Arnold.

DATED this 27th day of July, 2005.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05275-RBL Document 6 Filed 07/27/05 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1




Certifications of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Noble Medical Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:




The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 of the Company (the “Form 10-K”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date: April 15, 2011




/s/Elliot GoldmanElliot GoldmanChief Operating Officer(Principal Executive Officer)/s/Tatiana WalkerTatiana WalkerInterim Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
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

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

DORLA NOKES,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C05-5834JKA

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Plaintiff does not appear to have

funds available to afford the $250.00 filing fee.

The clerk is directed to issue summonses submitted by plaintiff to enable plaintiff to properly serve

copies of the complaint on the appropriate parties. Plaintiff shall note that it is her responsibility to

properly serve copies of the complaint along with appropriate summons as required by Rule 4 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 18TH day of January, 2006.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05834-RBL Document 2 Filed 01/18/06 Page 1 of 1
From: ebusy4872@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:46:03 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Nancy Gonzalez

North Richland Hills, TX 76180