alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
BELAIR REAL ESTATE CORP.

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                       TO
                              MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT

     THIS  AMENDMENT  NO. 1, dated as of December  28, 1999,  to the  Management
Agreement dated as of November 23, 1998 (the  "Agreement"),  is made between the
parties  to the  Agreement.  Capitalized  terms used  herein  and not  otherwise
defined have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.

     Section  2 of the  Agreement  is hereby  amended  and  restated  to read as
follows:

                           2.  COMPENSATION  OF THE MANAGER.  For the  services,
         payments and facilities to be furnished  hereunder by the Manager,  the
         Manager shall be entitled to receive from BREC in respect of each month
         a monthly  management  fee at the rate of  1/20th of 1% of the  average
         daily gross investment  assets of BREC. The gross investment  assets on
         any day means the value of all assets of BREC,  minus the sum of BREC's
         liabilities  other than the principal  amount of money  borrowed.  (For
         this  purpose,   the  assets  and  liabilities  of  BREC's   controlled
         subsidiaries  are  reduced by the  proportionate  interests  therein of
         investors other than BREC.) Such compensation  shall be paid monthly in
         arrears on the last  business  day of each  month.  The value of BREC's
         assets shall be computed  daily in accordance  with the by-laws of BREC
         and any  resolutions of the directors of BREC. In case of initiation or
         termination  of this  Agreement  during any month with respect to BREC,
         the fee for that month  shall be based on the number of  calendar  days
         during  which it is in effect.  The Manager may elect to waive all or a
         portion of any monthly management fee; in the event of any such waiver,
         the  amount so waived  shall not be due from or  payable  by BREC under
         this Agreement for such month.

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

     IN WITNESS  HEREOF,  the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 1 to
be executed as of the day and year first written above.

BELAIR REAL ESTATE CORPORATION

By:     /s/ Thomas E. Faust Jr.
        -------------------------------
        its Executive Vice President

BOSTON MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH

By:     /s/ Alan R. Dynner
        -------------------------------
        its Vice President
No. 64005.

protests 172081-K, etc. (New York).

#### American Wines d/b/a British American Importation Co., Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508). and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
     I, Wayne W. Byers, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of ebank Financial Services, Inc.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;
     4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:
     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and
     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter(the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting;
     5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small businessissuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 13, 2005         By:       /s/ Wayne W. Byers    Wayne W. Byers, Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2318

SARA ABRAM, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General; WARREN A. LEWIS, INS District Director, Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A78-340-234) Submitted: April 12, 2004 Decided: May 14, 2004 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael M. Hadeed, Jr., BECKER, HADEED, KELLOGG & BERRY, P.C., Springfield, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Hillel R. Smith, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Sara Abram, a citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. On appeal, Abram raises challenges to the immigration judge’s determination that she failed to establish her eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence [s]he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Abram fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that she seeks. Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of Abram’s request for withholding of removal. The standard for withholding of removal is more stringent than that for granting asylum. Chen v. INS , 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999). To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate “a clear probability of persecution.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Because Abram fails to show that she is- 3 - eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
(b) (6)




(b) (6)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Balance Sheet at June 30, 1998 (Unaudited) and the Statement of Operations
for the Six Months Ended June 30, 1998 (Unaudited) and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      19,491,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,390,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (254,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            29,412,000
<PP&E>                                     316,072,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (85,536,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             286,434,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       21,299,000
<BONDS>                                    304,596,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       11,030,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       116,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (53,600,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               286,434,000
<SALES>                                     18,831,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            30,414,000
<CGS>                                       10,662,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               16,641,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            38,488,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          16,918,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (43,158,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (2,348,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (41,692,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (41,692,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (38.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (38.75)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                            1,219,267
<SECURITIES>                         28,269
<RECEIVABLES>                        96,430
<ALLOWANCES>                          1,600
<INVENTORY>                         710,628
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  2,829,998
<PP&E>                              104,085
<DEPRECIATION>                       18,094
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    3,011,729
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               443,128
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                              9,635
<OTHER-SE>                        2,564,504
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      3,011,729
<SALES>                             231,346
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    231,346
<CGS>                                81,501
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       832,565
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   (245,493)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     (166)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (437,227)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                       (437,227)
<EPS-BASIC>                           (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (0.08)



</TABLE>
Document

EXHIBIT 10.2
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO GILEAD SCIENCES, INC. 
2004 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
AS AMENDED AND RESTATED MAY 10, 2017 
This AMENDMENT NO. 1 (this “Amendment”) to the Gilead Sciences, Inc. 2004 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended and restated May 10, 2017 (the “Plan”) of Gilead Sciences, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) is effective as of October 23, 2020 (the “Amendment Effective Date”).  Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Plan. 
WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Plan and pursuant to Section 13 thereof, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) may amend the Plan;
WHEREAS, in connection with the transactions contemplated by that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of September 13, 2020, between the Company, Immunomedics, Inc., a Delaware corporation and Maui Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, the Board approved the Company’s assumption of 25,857,187 shares of common stock, par value $0.001 per share, of the Company (the “Assumed Shares”) previously available for issuance under the Immunomedics, Inc. Amended & Restated 2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan, to be issued pursuant to the Plan in accordance with, and subject to the terms and conditions of, an exception under Nasdaq Rule 5635(c)(3) (the “Immunomedics Plan Assumption”); and
WHEREAS, the Company wishes to amend the Plan to reflect the Immunomedics Plan Assumption. 
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the powers enumerated in Section 13 of the Plan, the Company amends the Plan as follows, effective as of the Amendment Effective Date:
1.Section 3(a) of the Plan is hereby amended and restated to read as follows:
(a)Subject to the provisions of Section 10 below, the maximum number of Shares which may be issued in the aggregate under the Plan pursuant to all Awards made hereunder (including, without limitation, Restricted Stock, Restricted Stock Units, Performance Shares, Options, SARs, Dividend Equivalent Rights, and Phantom Shares) shall be limited to 335,045,553 Shares, which includes 25,857,187 shares assumed from the Immunomedics, Inc. Amended & Restated 2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Immunomedics Shares”) that became available as of October 23, 2020.  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, (i) the Immunomedics Shares may not be granted pursuant to Awards to individuals who were employed immediately prior to October 23, 2020 by the Company or any of its Subsidiaries and (ii) the Immunomedics Shares will not be available for grant under this Plan after April 16, 2030. The Shares to be issued pursuant to Awards may be authorized, but unissued, or reacquired Common Stock.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company executed this Amendment effective as of the Amendment Effective Date.
									
		GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.
			
		By:	/s/    JYOTI MEHRA
		Name:	Jyoti Mehra
		Title:	Executive Vice President, Human Resources
DISMISS ; and Opinion Filed February 20, 2018.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 17

- 01360

- CV

DONALD G. HENSLEE , Appellant

V.
REGIONS BANK , Appellee

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 14

- 11148



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Lang, Fillmore, and Schenck Opinion by Justice Fillmore
Before the Court is appellant’s unopposed motion for dismissal. Appellant informs the

Court that he no longer wishes to pursue this appeal. Accordingly, we grant appellant’s motion

and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

171360F.P05 /Robert M. Fillmore/
ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE– 2

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

DONALD G. HENSLEE, Appellant

No. 05

- 17

- 01360

- CV V.

REGIONS BANK, Appellee On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 14

- 11148. Op inion delivered by Justice Fillmore. Justices Lang and Schenck participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.
Subject to any agreement between the parties, it is ORDERED that appellee REGIONS BANK recover its costs of this appeal from appellant DONALD G. HENSLEE.

Judgment entered this 20th day of February, 2018.
No. 54459.

#### Leading Forwarders, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 155751-K (B), etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 61235.

protest 193573-K (New York).

#### The London Gramophone Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of resistors similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 57045, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 62970.

#### Tropical Craft Corporation, Successors to Tropical Craft Import & Export Corporation *v.*United States,

protest 132837-K (Tampa).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

The protest was dismissed.
No. 56296.

protest 161061-K (New York).

#### Swank, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of leather belts the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 55650, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 67716.

#### Gallagher & Ascher Company *v.*United States,

protests 62/4810-12694 and 62/4819-12778 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Eord, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of semiautomatic scales which are machines, containing an electric-light bulb; that the electric-light bulb is the only electrical feature of the machine; and that the scale will perform all of its functions, as a scale, without the use of the electric-light bulb, the claim of 'the plaintiff was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CALVIN JOHNSON

 v.

SUPT. KYLER, et al.

:

:

:

:

:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 03-4810

ORDER

AND NOW, this 21st day of August, 2024, upon consideration of pro se Petitioner Calvin 

Johnson’s Motion for Relief Pursuant to Rule 60(b) (ECF No. 37) and the Philadelphia District 

Attorney’s Response in Opposition, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, 

it is hereby ORDERED the Motion is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Juan R. Sánchez 

Juan R. Sánchez, J.

Case 2:03-cv-04810-JS Document 43 Filed 08/21/24 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                            W-H ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


         In connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2003 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey L. Tepera, the Chief Financial
Officer of W-H Energy Services, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, to my
knowledge, 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 in
respect of those items required to be described or presented in such Report
under Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                                        /s/ Jeffrey T. Tepera
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        Name:    Jeffrey L. Tepera
                                        Date:    May 9, 2003


This certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be a part of the Report or
"filed" for any purpose whatsoever.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 1, 2020

t0422 

# Order

Clerk May 1, 2020

158620 & (45)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 158620

COA: 337330

Saginaw CC: 98

- 015095

- FH

LARRY JOVAN ADAMS,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

By order of March 5, 2019, the application for leave to appeal the October 2, 2018

judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People v

Washington (Docket No. 156648). On order of the Court, the case having been decided

on May 22, 2019, 503 Mich 1030 (2019), the application is again cons idered and, it

appearing to this Court that the case of People v Washington (Docket No. 160707) is

pending on appeal before this Court and that the decision in that case may resolve an

issue raised in the present application for leave to appeal, we ORDER t hat the application

be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case. The motion to file

supplemental answer is GRANTED.
No. 50853.

#### Protest 120935-K of Fries Bros., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

An examination of the record failing to find anything sufficient to overcome the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.