alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT OF SALE

     THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT OF SALE (this "Amendment") is made and
entered into this 13th day of December, 1996 by and between DANE REAL ESTATE,
INC., a Florida corporation ("Purchaser"), and PEMBROKE ASSOCIATES LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, an Illinois limited partnership ("Seller").

                                  WITNESSETH:

     WHEREAS, Seller and Purchaser are parties to that certain Agreement of
Sale dated October 31, 1996 as amended by First Amendment to Agreement of Sale
dated as of December      , 1996 (collectively the "Agreement"), pursuant to
which Purchaser has agreed to purchase and Seller has agreed to sell certain
Property (as defined in the Agreement) legally described and depicted on
Exhibit _A_ attached hereto; and

     WHEREAS, Seller and Purchaser desire to amend the Agreement in accordance
with the terms of this Amendment.

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) and other mutual
covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

     1.  All terms not otherwise defined shall have the meanings ascribed to
each in the Agreement.

     2.  The dates as set forth in subparagraphs 27.4, 27.5 and 27.6 of the
Agreement are amended as follows:

          (a) Wherever the date December 11, 1996 appears, it shall be modified
              to read "January 10, 1997."

          (b) Wherever the date December 16, 1996 appears, it shall be amended 
              and modified to read "January 15, 1997."

          (b) Wherever the date December 20, 1996 appears, it shall be amended
              and modified to read "January 19, 1997."

     3.  This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed an original, but all of which, when taken together shall constitute one
and the same instrument.  To facilitate the execution of this Amendment, Seller
and Purchaser may execute an exchange by telephone facsimile counterparts of
the signature pages, with each facsimile being deemed an "original" for all
purposes.
<PAGE>
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the
date first set forth above.


Witnesses:                         PURCHASER:

/s/ Glenda Rifkin                  DANE REAL ESTATE, INC., a
--------------------------         Florida corporation
/s / unreadable
--------------------------
                                   By:   /s/ A. J. Belt
                                        --------------------------------

                                   SELLER:

                                   PEMBROKE ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
                                   an Illinois limited partnership

                                   By:  Pembroke Partners, Inc., an Illinois
                                        corporation, its general partner

                                   By:   /s/ James E. Mendelson
                                        --------------------------------
<PAGE>
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1190 

To amend the Small Business Act to permit agencies to count certain 

contracts toward contracting goals. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 19, 2013 

Mr. ENZI (for himself and Mr. CASEY) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Act to permit agencies to 

count certain contracts toward contracting goals. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Business Fair5 ness Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TEAMING ARRANGEMENTS AND AGENCY CON7 TRACTING GOALS. 

8 Section 15(g) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

9 644(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1190 IS

1 ‘‘(3) TEAMING ARRANGEMENTS AND AGENCY

2 CONTRACTING GOALS.— 

3 ‘‘(A) DEFINITIONS.—In this paragraph— 

4 ‘‘(i) the term ‘covered small business 

5 concern’ means— 

6 ‘‘(I) a small business concern 

7 owned and controlled by service-dis8 abled veterans; 

9 ‘‘(II) a small business concern 

10 owned and controlled by socially and 

11 economically disadvantaged individ12 uals, as defined in section 8(d)(3)(C); 

13 ‘‘(III) a small business concern 

14 owned and controlled by women, as 

15 defined in section 8(d)(3)(D); or 

16 ‘‘(IV) a qualified HUBZone small 

17 business concern; and 

18 ‘‘(ii) the term ‘teaming arrangement 

19 entity’ means a prime contractor under a 

20 contractor team arrangement, as defined in 

21 section 9.601 of the Federal Acquisition 

22 Regulation. 

23 ‘‘(B) CONTRACTING GOALS.—If a covered 

24 small business concern performs the obligations 

25 of a teaming arrangement entity under a conVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:32 Jun 22, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1190.IS S1190

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1190 IS

1 tract between the teaming arrangement entity 

2 and a Federal agency, the head of the Federal 

3 agency may deem the contract to be a contract 

4 awarded to the covered small business concern 

5 for purposes of determining whether the Fed6 eral agency has met the goals established by the 

7 head of the Federal agency under paragraph 

8 (2).’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 717 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 717

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 10, 2014.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3522) to authorize health insurance issuers 
to continue to offer for sale current group health insurance coverage in 
satisfaction of the minimum essential health insurance coverage requirement, and 
for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
waived. An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of 
Rules Committee Print 113-56, modified by the amendment printed in the report of 
the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as 
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question 
shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further 
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and (2) one motion to recommit 
with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Louis CARR, Jr. and David T. Scullock, Jr., Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-831.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 15, 1972.

Rehearing Denied April 20, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2021098EN.01001301.xml

| 22.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 13 January 2021 — JW, HD, XS v LOT Polish Airlines

(Case C-20/21)

(2021/C 98/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: JW, HD, XS

Defendant: LOT Polish Airlines

Question referred

Must Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) be interpreted as meaning that the place of performance, within the meaning of that provision, in respect of a flight consisting of a confirmed single booking for the entire journey and divided into two or more legs, can also be the place of arrival of the first leg of the journey where transport on those legs of the journey is performed by two separate air carriers and the claim for compensation brought on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (2) arises from the delay of the first leg of the journey and is brought against the operating air carrier of that first leg?

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---
#### Freeman E. MOFFETT, Appellant, v. H. L. BREWER et al., Appellees.

No. 46726.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 25, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 23, 1972.

Minniece, Hamilton, Neville & Hamill, Meridian, for appellant.

Gerald Adams, Meridian, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lauderdale County; Lester F. Williamson, Judge.

Before GILLESPIE, C. J., and JONES, BRADY, INZER and SUGG, JJ.

Affirmed.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed August 21, 2024

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D23

- 1185 Lower Tribunal No. 20

- 3764

________________ 

### Homeowners Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Inc. , Appellant,

vs. 

### Dina Loo, et al. , Appellee s

.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Valerie R. Manno Schurr , Judge. Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Mark D. Tinker and Brandon J. Tyler (Tampa) , for appellant. The Nation Law Firm, Mark A. Nation and Paul W. Pritchard (Longwood) , for appellee s

.

Before EMAS, GORDO and LOBREE , JJ.
PER CURIAM.2 Affirmed. See People’s Tr

. Ins. Co. v. Armenteros , 49 Fla. L. Weekly
D932 (Fla. 3d DCA May 1, 2024 ); Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Rodriguez , 49 Fla. L. Weekly D593 (Fla. 3d DCA March 13, 2024); Tower Hill Prime Ins.
Co. v. Bermudez , 388 So. 3d 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)

.

.
#### Charles SINGLETON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-366.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 23, 1972.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, and D. Turner Matthews, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

MANN, Judge.

The only question in this appeal is whether the evidence of the value of the victim’s purse and the items contained therein sustains Singleton’s conviction of grand larceny. At the most the record will support a finding that there was $87.00 in cash in the purse at the time, and the grand larceny conviction can only be sustained upon evidence that the purse and its contents had a market value of at least $13.00. However, the only testimony is as to the original cost of the articles, and defense counsel was not allowed to cross-examine the victim regarding current value.1 The prosecutor and trial judge *314identified original cost with value and this was plainly error. There is absolutely nothing in this record which will sustain the contention that the victim’s lipstick, which she paid $3.00 for, had a value of $3.00. The State can no more contend that the lipstick had a value at the time of the theft — the material date — than the defendant could contend that its value was determined by what a fence would pay for stolen property. The purse, which the victim valued at $8.00, had cost that sum a year earlier. She could not testify whether the brush, which she valued at $5.00, having paid that sum for it, was a year old or two years old.

We agree completely with the State’s contention that the victim is a competent witness to value,2 but like all witnesses her testimony cannot be accepted when it is so . . inherently improbable or unreasonable, opposed to common knowledge . . . ”3 as to be unworthy of belief. This is an old principle more recently illuminated by Judge Bark-dull in Shell’s City, Inc. v. Westerman.4

Cost bears on value but is not its equivalent. Accordingly the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to enter judgment, pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 924.34 (1969), F.S.A.5 adjudicating Singleton guilty of petit larceny and to impose an appropriate sentence.

In view of the fact that the appellant’s brief was filed tardily and cited no authorities, as F.A.R. 3.7(f), 32 F.S.A. requires, thus imposing upon this court the obligation of annotating this opinion and, as a consequence, the maximum sentence for petit larceny will shortly have expired, the time within which the State may file petition for rehearing is reduced to five days.

Reversed and remanded.

LILES, A. C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.

1

. Suarez v. State, Fla.App.2d 1962, 136 So.2d 367, and eases therein cited; see also Miller v. State, Fla.App.2d 1968, 212 So.2d 388.

4

. Fla.App.3d 1971, 257 So.2d 276.

5

. This statute was amended by Laws of Florida 1970, c. 70-339, § 161, in a respect not here material.

2

. Wright v. State, Fla.App.1st 1971, 251 So.2d 890.

3

. Catlett v. Chestnut, 1933, 107 Fla. 498, 146 So. 241.
#### Henry J. HERMES v. Marzella Verniel DEACON, wife of Henry J. HERMES.

No. 53521.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 17, 1973.

In re: Marcella Verniel Deacon applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans, 275 So.2d 416.

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
32.1




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, filed pursuant to Section
13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, of The First
Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, David E. Johnson, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 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 Section
      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 theCompany.




/s/
      David E. JohnsonName:
                  David
      E. JohnsonTitle:
                  Chief
      Executive OfficerDate:
                  May
      20, 2009





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to The First Bancshares, Inc., and will be
retained by The First Bancshares, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 99.2



                            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 of Avery  Communications,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Thomas
C. Ratchford,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to ss. 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/ Thomas C. Ratchford
----------------------------------
Thomas C. Ratchford
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2002
# C_2022472EN.01003501.xml

| 12.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 472/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 472/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2022 — Sistem ecologica v Commission

(Case T-81/21) (1)

(Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 - Investigation into evasion of the conventional, countervailing and anti-dumping duties imposed on imports of biodiesel into the European Union - OLAF Communication to national customs authorities - OLAF investigation report - Action for annulment - Act not open to challenge - Claim for compensation - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)

(2022/C 472/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant:‘Sistem ecologica’ production, trade and services d.o.o. Srbac (Srbac, Bosnia and Herzegovina) (represented by: D. Diris, D. Rjabynina, C. Kocks and C. Verheyen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and T. Materne, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Articles 263 and 268 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the final investigation report adopted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) on 8 December 2020 and of OLAF’s decisions contained in a communication sent on 9 June 2020 to the Member States, in letters of 25 and 27 November 2020 and in letters of 8 and 21 December 2020 and, second, compensation in respect of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders ‘Sistem ecologica’ production, trade and services d.o.o. Srbac to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ‘Sistem ecologica’ production, trade and services d.o.o. Srbac to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 163, 3.5.2021.

---
Exhibit 4.10
  (LOGO)
    
    (BT LOGO)
 Matti AlahuhtaPresident Kone CorporationKeilasatamas 3F1-02150 EspooFINLAND
    
    12th January 2009
     /s/ Andrew J. ParkerANDREW J. PARKER
 To:
    
    Andrew ParkerCompany Secretary
  /s/ Matti Alahuhta
    
    
    
    19.1.2009Matti Alahuhta
    
    
    
    Date
 Andrew J ParkerCompany SecretaryBT GroupBT Centre
81 Newgate Street
London EC1A 7AJ
United Kingdom
    
    tel
fax
mob
e-mail
    
    +44 (0)20 7356 5237
+44 (0)20 7356 6135
+44 (0)7802 773635
andrew.j.parker@bt.com
    
    (LOGO)
    
    BT Group plc
Registered Office:
81 Newgate Street, London EC1A 7AJ
Registered in England and Wales no. 4190816www.bt.com
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Kyle Gregory Layman , Appellant

No. 06

- 21

- 00003

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 19th District Court of McLennan County, Texas (Tr. Ct

. No. 2019

- 1650

- C1 ). Memor andum Opinion delivered by Justice Burgess
, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Stevens participating

.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Kyle Gregory Layman , has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED DECEMBER 17, 2021 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
#### STATE of Louisiana in the Interest of Kenneth BATISTE and David James Cormier.

No. 62821.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 22, 1978.

In re: The state of Louisiana, through the District Attorney, Hon. J. Nathan Stansbury, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Lafayette. 359 So.2d 1077.

Writ granted.

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.
# C_2022037EN.01000701.xml

| 24.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/7

---

Appeal brought on 26 August 2021 by CE against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2021 in Case T-355/19, CE v Committee of the Regions

(Case C-539/21 P)

(2022/C 37/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: CE (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: Committee of the Regions

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside in part the judgment of 16 June 2021, CE v Committee of the Regions (T-355/19); |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside in part the judgment of 16 June 2021, CE v Committee of the Regions (T-355/19);

| — | order the Committee of the Regions to pay all the costs, including those incurred before the General Court relating both to the main proceedings and to the interlocutory proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Committee of the Regions to pay all the costs, including those incurred before the General Court relating both to the main proceedings and to the interlocutory proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of her appeal, the appellant contests in particular paragraphs 69 and 70, 73 to 77, 83 to 91, 109 to 116, 126 to 139, 149 and 150 of the judgment under appeal. The appellant puts forward a single ground of appeal, alleging distortion of the facts and manifest errors of assessment resulting in an inadequate and inaccurate legal reasoning.

---
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATE OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Orion HealthCorp, Inc. (the small
business issuer);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;4.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:
    5.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business
issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
   th
 /s/ Stephen H. MurdockStephen H. Murdock, Chief Financial Officer(Principal Accounting Officer)