alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T J UL Y 21, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N o

. 0 9

- 1 6 4 6 7 N o n
- A r g u m e n t C a l e n d a r

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 9

- 0 0 0 5 0

- C R

- O R L

- 2 2 G J K

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A ,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e ,

v e r s u s

B E R N A R D B E N J A M I N ,
D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e M i d d l e D i s t r i c t o f F l o r i d a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( J u l y 2 1 , 2 0 1 0 )

B e f o r e B A R K E T T , M A R C U S a n d A N D E R S O N , C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.
P E R C U R I A M :

T o m D a l e , a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l f o r B e r n a r d B e n

j a m i n i n t h i s d i r e c t c r i m i n a la p p e a l , h a s m o v e d t o w i t h d r a w f r o m f u r t h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e a p p e l l a n t a n d

f i l e d a b r i e f p u r s u a n t t o A n d e r s v

. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 , 8 7 S

. C t

. 1 3 9 6 , 1 8

L

. E d

. 2 d 4 9 3 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t

c o u n s e l ’ s a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e r e l a t i v e m e r i t o f t h e a p p e a l i s c o r r e c t

. B e c a u s e
i n d e p e n d e n t e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s n o a r g u a b l e i s s u e s o f m e r i t ,

c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , a n d B e n j a m i n ’ s c o n v i c t i o n s a n d

s e n t e n c e s a r e A F F I R M E D

.

2
#### Marvin I. BAKER, Appellant, v. Susan S. BAKER, Appellee.

No. 77-461.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 13, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 16, 1978.

Hilton R. Carr, Jr. and L. J. Cushman, Miami, for appellant.

Sinclair, Louis, Siegel & Heath and Paul Siegel, Miami, for appellee.

Before HUBBART and KEHOE, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### William Bradford DILLINGHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-952.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 15, 1974.

Rehearing Denied March 18, 1974.

Charles W. Musgrove, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and C. Marie Bernard, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have examined the briefs and record on appeal and heard oral argument; on the basis thereof we are of the view that the contentions of the petitioner-appellant, including his challenge to the jurisdiction of the court, are without merit. Therefore, finding no reversible error the decision of the trial court is affirmed.

OWEN, C. J., and CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.

ORDER

Ordered sua sponte, Case No. 73-1039 is consolidated with 73-952 and upon said consolidation said Case No. 73-1039, commenced by the filing of a Notice of Appeal May 4, 1973 in Case No. 73-1635 CF (Mounts) in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida, is hereby dismissed because the said Notice of Appeal being a duplicate of that Notice of Appeal filed in Case No. 73-952, was mistakenly filed in this court, and further,

Ordered that the appellant’s February 22, 1974 Petition for Rehearing in Case No. 73-952 is denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-04-1998
<CASH>                                              85
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,992<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     15,279
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,968
<PP&E>                                          19,224<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  57,008
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,734
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           663
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,632
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    57,008
<SALES>                                         22,806
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,806
<CGS>                                           17,278<F3>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,808
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (65)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 172
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    891
<INCOME-TAX>                                       312
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                579
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       579
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .53
<FN>
<F1>Net of allowance for doubtful accounts
<F2>Net of accumulated depreciation and depletion
<F3>Exclusive of depreciation, depletion and amortization
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Andrew Benjamin PIERCE v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 46059.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 23, 1970.

Floyd & Floyd, Gulfport, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Timmie Hancock, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                              WES ACQUISITION CORP.
                             411 West Putnam Avenue
                          Greenwich, Connecticut 06830

March 12, 1997

Wahlco Environmental Systems, Inc.
3660 West Segerstrom Avenue
Santa Ana, CA 92704

Gentlemen:

     Reference is made to (1) that certain Term Loan Agreement dated as of July
28, 1995, as amended (the "Term Loan Agreement"), between WES Acquisition Corp.
("WESAC") and Wahlco Environmental Systems, Inc. ("Wahlco"), and the notes
issued pursuant thereto (the "Term Loan Notes"), (2) that certain Note, dated
May 15, 1995 (the "Acquisition Debt Note"), in the principal amount of
$4,900,000 from Wahlco to WESAC and (3) that certain amendment dated April
12,1996 of the Term Loan Agreement and the Acquisition Debt Note.

     This letter will confirm that, commencing January 1, 1997, and continuing
through the respective maturity dates of the Term Loan Agreement and the
Acquisition Debt Note, on each date when interest shall have become, or would
otherwise become, due and payable in respect of the Acquisition Debt Note and
the Term Loan Notes, such interest shall be capitalized and added to the
outstanding principal balance of the Acquisition Debt Note or the Term Loan
Notes, as the case may be, and the new principal balance of the Acquisition Debt
Note and the Term Loan Notes, as the case may be, shall accrue interest at the
rate provided therein.

     This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between Wahlco and WESAC
with respect to the subject matter hereof. Except as set forth herein, the Term
Loan Agreement, the Term Loan Notes and the Acquisition Debt Note remain in full
force and effect.

     This agreement may not be amended, modified or waived except by a written
agreement signed by Wahlco and WESAC. This agreement shall be governed by the
laws of the State of New York. This agreement may be executed in counterparts,
all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one agreement.

<PAGE>

Wahlco Environmental Systems, Inc.
March 12, 1997
Page 2

     If the foregoing correctly sets forth our agreement with respect to the
subject matter hereof, kindly sign in the space indicated below and return two
executed copies of this letter to WESAC at its address set forth above.

                                        WES ACQUISITION CORP.

                                        By:  illegible
                                            ------------------------------
                                        Its: Vice President
                                            ------------------------------

Agreed to and accepted as of
this 12th day of March, 1997

WAHLCO ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, INC.

By:  illegible
    ------------------------------
Its: VP CFO
    ------------------------------
#### DAVIS & CRAVEN, INC., Appellant, v. WESTERN HILLS ESTATES, INC., a Florida corporation, Grove Park Estates No. 2, Inc., a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 72-1138.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 6, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Rose MASTRODONATO and Leo Mastrodonato, her husband, Appellants, v. TASTEE BUN CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-621.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 24, 1970.

Granat, Rosenblatt & Roemer, Horton & Schwartz, Miami, for appellants.

Wicker, Smith, Pyszka, Blomqvist & Davant, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Carl’s Market, Inc. v. Meyer, Fla.1953, 69 So.2d 789; Food Fair Stores of Florida, Inc. v. Patty, Fla.1959, 109 So.2d 5; Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Trusell, Fla.1961, 131 So.2d 730.
#### Jose Alfredo VELASCO-ESTRADA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 01-71567.

INS No. [ AXX XXX XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 15, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Alfredo Velasco-Estrada, a citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252,1 and we deny the petition.

The BIA’s determination that an alien is not eligible for asylum must be upheld if it is “ ‘supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.’ ” *INS v. Elias-Zaca-**808*Has,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (citation omitted). “It can be reversed only if the evidence presented ... was such that a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that the requisite fear of persecution existed.” *Id.*When an alien seeks to overturn the BIA’s adverse determination, “he must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” *Id.*at 483-84; *see also Cordon-Garcia v. INS,*204 F.3d 985, 990 (9th Cir.2000); *Ghaly v. INS,*58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir.1995).

Where an asylum claim is involved, an alien must show either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution that is “both subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable.” *Fisher v. INS,*79 F.3d 955, 960 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc). Additionally, the claimed persecution must be on account of one of the grounds set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). *See id.*at 962.

“[W]e treat the IJ’s statement of reasons as the BIA’s and review the IJ’s decision for abuse of discretion,” because the BIA’s decision “makes it clear” that it is incorporating the IJ’s decision. *Alaelua v. INS,*45 F.3d 1379, 1382 (9th Cir.1995); *see also Gonzalez v. INS,*82 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir.1996). While Velasco-Estrada may have shown that the guerrillas used violence and threats in attempting to forcibly recruit him, the evidence does not compel the conclusion that he was persecuted on account of his political opinion, if any. *See Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. at 482-83; *Molina-Morales v. INS,*237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir.2001); *Cruz-Navarro v. INS,*232 F.3d 1024, 1029-30 (9th Cir. 2000).

Petition DENIED.2

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as 9th Cir. R. 36-3 may provide.

1

. Velasco-Estrada was placed into administrative proceedings after April 1, 1997. *See Kalaw v. INS,*133 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir.1997).

2

. Because Velasco-Estrada did not meet the eligibility requirements for asylum, he was not entitled to withholding of deportation either. *See Ghaly,*58 F.3d at 1429.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7376

PAUL ARTHUR LIPICH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE M. HINKLE, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CA-98-499-R)

Submitted: December 22, 1998 Decided: January 11, 1999

Before HAMILTON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Arthur Lipich, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Paul Arthur Lipich seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Lipich v. Hinkle, No. CA-98-499-

R (W.D. Va. Sept. 10, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 32**

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection withthe quarterly report of Continental Materials Corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended July 1, 2006, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James G. Gidwitz, theChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, JosephJ. Sum, the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, herebycertify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, and Section 1350, of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that toour knowledge:

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periodspresented in the Report.
|            |   |                                       |
|-----------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|            |   |                                       |
| August 15, 2006 |   |                                       |
|            |   |                                       |
|            |   |                                       |
|            | By:    | /s/   James G. Gidwitz           |
|            |   | James G. Gidwitz                           |
|            |   | Chairman of the Board and                  |
|            |   | Chief Executive Officer                    |
|            |   |                                       |
|            |   |                                       |
|            |   |                                       |
|            | By:    | /s/   Joseph J. Sum              |
|            |   | Joseph J. Sum                              |
|            |   | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|            |   |                                       |

 

----
Exhibit 32





              CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Con-way Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas W.
Stotlar, 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 the best of my knowledge:

  (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
     15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
     and

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


Dated:  August 6, 2009



/s/  Douglas W. Stotlar
-----------------------
Name:Douglas W. Stotlar
Title:Chief Executive Officer








                                                                   Exhibit 32



              CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Con-way Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen L.
Bruffett, Chief Financial 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 the best of my knowledge:

  (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
     15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
     and

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


Dated:  August 6, 2009


/s/  Stephen L. Bruffett
------------------------
Name:Stephen L. Bruffett
Title:Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the “Report”) of OFS Capital Corporation (the “Registrant”),
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Bilal Rashid, the Chief Executive 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/ Bilal Rashid
|----- | ----------------
|Name: | Bilal Rashid    
|Date: | March 6, 2015
Document

Exhibit 10.1


SECOND AMENDMENT TO BUSINESS MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
This SECOND AMENDMENT TO BUSINESS MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”), effective as of August 1, 2021, is made and entered into by and between Industrial Logistics Properties Trust, a Maryland real estate investment trust (the “Company”), and The RMR Group LLC, a Maryland limited liability company (the “Manager”).
WHEREAS, the Company and the Manager are parties to that certain Business Management Agreement, dated as of January 17, 2018, as amended by the Amendment to Business Management Agreement, dated as of December 31, 2018 (the “Business Management Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Company and the Manager wish to amend certain provisions of the Business Management Agreement as hereinafter provided;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements herein set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1.The definition of “SNL Index” included in Section 11 of the Business Management Agreement shall be replaced in its entirety by the following:
“Index” shall mean (i) the SNL U.S. REIT Industrial Index, as published from time to time, for all periods ending prior to August 1, 2021 and (ii) the MSCI U.S. REIT/Industrial REIT Index, as published from time to time, for all periods beginning on or after August 1, 2021.
2.The Business Management Agreement shall be amended by deleting all references therein to “SNL Index” and replacing them with references to the “Index”.
3.As amended hereby, the Business Management Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
4.The provisions of this Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Maryland.
5.This Amendment may be executed in separate counterparts, each of such counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original and all such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument.


[Signature page follows]


















IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed and delivered by their respective duly authorized officers, as of the date first written above.


 
 
									
	9 		INDUSTRIAL LOGISTICS PROPERTIES TRUST
			
		By:	/s/ John G. Murray
		 	Name: John G. Murray
		 	Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
			
	 	THE RMR GROUP LLC
			
	 	By:	/s/ Matthew P. Jordan
	 	 	Name: Matthew P. Jordan
			Title: Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
814 A.2d 468

#### Dale ROWLAND, 9108 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20814, Petitioner, v. ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND, 100 Community Place, Suite 3301 Crownsville, Maryland 21032-2027.

Misc. AG No. 68,

Sept. Term, 2001.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Dec. 30, 2002.

*ORDER*

This matter came before the Court on the Petition of Dale E. Rowland for reinstatement to the bar of Maryland.

The Court having considered the Petition for Reinstatement and the Response of Bar Counsel, it is by the Court the 30th Day of December, 2002

ORDERED, that Dale E. Rowland be and is hereby reinstated to the bar of Maryland. It is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court, pursuant to Rule 16-781(1) place the name of the Petitioner on the register of attorneys in this Court and certify that fact to the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund and to the clerks of all courts in this State.