alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.8

                                LETTER AGREEMENT

<PAGE>

                            TEREX ENERGY CORPORATION
                               520 Zang St. #2505
                           Broomfield, Colorado 80021
                              Tel: (303) 956-0226

                                LETTER AGREEMENT
                                ----------------

July 2, 2014

The Parties to this agreement are:

1)       RV Borchert  Turst  (Borchert)  - Oil Producer PO Box 467,  Sidney,  NE
         69162-0467, and

2)       Terex Energy Corporation (Terex) - 520 Zang St., #250,  Broomfield,  CO
         80021

The parties hereto agree to the following:

1)       Borchert  will  take  oil and  gas  leases  covering  Sec.  15  (A11) -
         T12N-R56W Kimball, County Nebraska.

2)       Borchert  agrees to assign  Terex  100% of all rights  specific  to the
         Miller 1-155 well,  in the SWNW Sec 15,  T12N-R56W  (40 acres),  with a
         1/8th royalty lease (No additional burdens attached).

3)       Borchert  will be allowed to drill any 40 acre  location  in section 15
         other  than  the SWNW  40;  each  well  drilled  will  hold the 40 acre
         drillsite spacing unit associated with that well.

4)       When Borchert is finished with its' drilling  program being intial test
         and development offsets  immediately  adjacent to the initial test well
         40 acres,  Terex will be allowed to drill any  remaining  undrilled  40
         acre locations in section 15.

5)       Borchert  and  Terex  will  mutually  share  all  geologic  information
         obtained during operations by either party.

6)       Both parties agree that each has the opportunity to participate in each
         others projects in an amount determined by mutual consent.

/s/ Allen Heim                                  /s/ R.V. Borchert Trust
------------------------------                  -------------------------------
Terex Energy Corporation                        R.V. Borchert Trust
Allen Heim - VP Operations                      R.V. Borchert
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AARON DOYLE,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

BRIAN CHASE; LAW OFFICES OF

BRIAN CHASE PLLC,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-35545

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00158-RHW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Robert H. Whaley, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 2, 2011

Seattle, Washington

Before: SCHROEDER, McKEOWN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff Aaron Doyle appeals the district court’s grant of summary

judgment in his action under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18

U.S.C. § 1030, against Brian Chase and the Law Offices of Brian Chase

(collectively, “Chase”). Doyle asserts that Chase violated the CFAA by accessing,

FILED

MAY 24 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

without Doyle’s authorization, Doyle’s USB thumb drive, which contained

personnel records sealed by the California state court. Doyle contends that he

satisfied the “loss” requirement as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(11) because of

his need for a forensic computer expert to detect and delete all of the documents

that were copied from the thumb drive to Chase’s computers. 

The district court concluded that even accepting Doyle’s theory of loss, his

assessment of loss is entirely speculative. We agree. Doyle bases his loss

assessment solely on two expert declarations. The district court correctly

concluded that the discussion of damages in the first declaration was too

speculative to survive summary judgment. See e.g., Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless,

Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Conclusory, speculative testimony in

affidavits and moving papers is insufficient to raise genuine issues of fact and

defeat summary judgment.”). The second, which attempts to calculate the basis for

the future expenditure of more than $5,000, was submitted well beyond the

discovery deadlines. The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to

consider this untimely declaration. See, e.g., Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers

Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001). 

AFFIRMED.
NLNK-2014.12.31-EX10.108


Exhibit 10.108





Iowa State University Research Park Corporation
2711 South Loop Drive, Suite 4050
Ames, Iowa 50010-8648


Memorandum of Agreement




DATE:        February 12, 2015


TO:        Carl Langren, CFO
NewLink Genetics Corporation
2503 S. Loop Drive, Suite 5100
Ames, IA 50010


FROM:    Steven T. Carter, President


		
	RE:
	ADDENDUM TO THE LEASE BETWEEN ISU RESEARCH PARK CORPORATION AND NEWLINK GENETICS CORPORATION DATED MARCH 1, 2010.




The following information constitutes changes to the Lease Agreement between ISU Research Park Corporation (Landlord) and NewLink Genetics Corporation (Tenant).  Upon signatures of appropriate representatives of Landlord and Tenant affixed to this Memorandum, this Memorandum becomes a part of that Lease Agreement dated March 1, 2010.


Tenant has requested and Landlord agrees to extend the Lease Agreement for Suites 5100- 5400 (±23,544 rentable square feet), Building #5 at 2503 South Loop Drive, in the following manner:


Sq. Ft.        Sq. Ft.        Monthly    Monthly    Annual           Annual
Base        Operating    Base        Operating    Base           Operating
Term        Rents        Rents        Rents        Rents        Rents           Rents


2/1/2015-
1/31/2020    $11.50        Actual        $22,563.00    Actual        $270,756.00    Actual































Exhibit 10.108


NewLink Genetics Corporation
Page Two
February 12, 2015




Tenant leases the space as is.  Any modifications will be at the Tenant’s sole expense.  Tenant will continue to be responsible for all utility costs and operations.  Subject to the terms of this Memorandum, Tenant agrees that all terms and conditions of the March 1, 2010 Lease and those described in this Memorandum shall remain in force.




Please sign and return both originals to my office if you concur with the above terms.  We will then send a fully executed copy for your records.




AGREED


FOR                            FOR
NewLink Genetics Corporation            ISU Research Park Corporation


/s/Carl Langren                    /s/Steven Carter
VP Finance                        Director
Title
Title
2/12/2015                        2/12/2015
Date                            Date
Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.
11000 Broken Land Parkway
Columbia, MD 21044-3562
Attention: Master Servicing

RE: Officer's Certificate

Dear Master Servicer:

The undersigned Officer certifies the following for the 1999 fiscal year:


(A) I have reviewed the  activities and  performance of the Servicer  during the
    preceding  fiscal  year under the terms of the  Servicing  Agreement,  Trust
    Agreement,  Pooling and Servicing Agreement and/or Seller/Servicer Guide and
    to the best of these Officers' knowledge,  the Servicer has fulfilled all of
    its  duties,   responsibilities   or  obligations   under  these  Agreements
    throughout  such  year,  or if there has been a default  or  failure  of the
    servicer to perform any of such duties,  responsibilities or obligations,  a
    description of each default or failure and the nature and status thereof has
    been reported to Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.;

(B) I have  confirmed  that the Servicer is currently an approved  FNMA or FHLMC
    servicer in good standing;

(C) I have confirmed that the Fidelity Bond, the Errors and Omissions  Insurance
    Policy  and any  other  bonds  required  under  the  terms of the  Servicing
    Agreement,   Trust  Agreement,   Pooling  and  Servicing   Agreement  and/or
    Seller/Servicer Guide are in full force and effect;

(D) All premiums for each Hazard  Insurance  Policy,  Flood Insurance Policy (if
    applicable) and Primary  Mortgage  Insurance  Policy (if  applicable),  with
    respect  to each  Mortgaged  Property,  have  been  paid  and  that all such
    insurance policies are in full force and effect;

(E) All real  estate  taxes,  governmental  assessments  and any other  expenses
    accrued and due, that if not paid could result in a lien or  encumbrance  on
    any  Mortgaged  Property,  have been paid,  or if any such costs or expenses
    have not been paid with respect to any  Mortgaged  Property,  the reason for
    the non-payment has been reported to Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.;

(F) All Custodial Accounts have been reconciled and are properly funded; and

(G) All annual  reports of Foreclosure and  Abandonment  of Mortgage  Property
    required per section 6050H,  6050J and 6050P of the Internal  Revenue Code,
    respectively, have been prepared and filed.

Certified By:



Officer

VICE PRESIDENT
Title

4-7-00
Date
# Table 26. TEs in 63-um sediment

Table 26	&P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          34,567
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  235,239
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               269,806
<PP&E>                                      10,446,846
<DEPRECIATION>                                  50,236
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,666,416
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,525,037
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,013
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,990,366
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,666,416
<SALES>                                         46,164
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,164
<CGS>                                            1,560
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  584,286
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              66,376
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (606,058)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (606,058)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)


</TABLE>
No. 54111.

#### Gane & Ingram, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 143555-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. WR-89,569-01, -02, AND -03

EX PARTE DERRICK BRANNON SULLIVAN, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. W13-24555-S (A), W13-24563-S (A), AND W13-25621-S (A)

IN THE 282ND DISTRICT COURT FROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court these applications for writs of habeas corpus. Ex

parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). A jury convicted Applicant of three

offenses of indecency with a child by contact, and he was sentenced to incarceration.

Applicant raises several claims in his habeas applications, including claims of ineffective

assistance of trial counsel. He has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland

v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson, 993 S.W.2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App.

1999). There is no response from trial counsel in the habeas record provided to this Court, and there

are no findings from the trial court. In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. As we held
-2-

in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the

appropriate forum for findings of fact. 

The trial court shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claims of ineffective

assistance by explaining counsel’s representation of Applicant, including applicable strategy and

tactical decisions. To obtain the response, the trial court may use any means set out in TEX. CODE

CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether

Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court

shall appoint an attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the claims raised

in the habeas applications. The trial court may also make any other findings of fact and conclusions

of law it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claims for habeas corpus

relief.

These applications will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues.

The issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall be

obtained from this Court.

Filed: April 3, 2019

Do not publish
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating
to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
 c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and
 d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrant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 a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Mark J. DeCesaris

Mark J. DeCesarisacting Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 (the Report) of Technology Investment Capital Corp. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Patrick F. Conroy, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of 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, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                            
|--------------------------------------------
|/S/ PATRICK F. CONROY                       
|Name: Patrick F. Conroy Date: August 7, 2007
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 22, 2009

0415 

# Order

April 22, 2009

138550 & (39)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138550 COA: 286992 Berrien CC: 2005-401979-FH EDWARD PINKNEY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the February 18, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1 ), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we

REMAND this case to the Berrien Circuit Court for reconsider ation of the conditions of the appeal bond. We ORDER the trial court, w ithin 21 days of the da te of this order, to articulate the specific reasons for imposing a “24/7 curfew” on the defendant. The trial court shall file with the Clerk of the Suprem e Court a transcript and related documents, if any, within 14 days of the comple tion of the proceedings on remand.

We retain jurisdiction.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), theundersigned officer of Cano Petroleum, Inc. (the “Company”), does herebycertify, to such officer’s knowledge, that: the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the three months ended March 31, 2009 (the “Form 10-Q”) of theCompany fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and theinformation contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company asof, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.

 

 
| Dated:  May 11, 2009 | /s/ Benjamin Daitch                               |
|---------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                      | Benjamin Daitch                                   |
|                      | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                      | (Principal Financial Officer)                     |

 

 

Theforegoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Qpursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filedas part of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into anyfiling of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardlessof any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

----
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 1689** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
LEWIS F. CARTER , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. M. Hannah Lauck , District Judge. ( 3:15

- cv - 00161

- MHL )

Submitted : October 18, 2016 Decided: October 20, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Lewis F. Carter , Appellant Pro Se. Karen Grace Gregory , Joan Iris Oppenheimer , U NITED S TATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE , Washington, D.C., for Appellee

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Lewis F. Carter appeals fro m the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of the United States on its action seeking to reduce to judgment Carter’s unpaid liabilities for income taxes, penalties, and interest for the years 1997 to
2000, 2002 to 2006, 2008, and 2009 , and denying his multiple postjudgment motions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Carter , No. 3:15

- cv 00161

- MHL (E.D. Va. Dec. 31, 2015; Apr. 2 9, 2016) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED