alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
one847holdings_ex102.htm



EXHIBIT 10.2


 


1847 PARTNERS LLC


590 Madison Avenue, 18th Floor


New York, NY 10022




September 15, 2013







Mr. Ellery Roberts


Chief Executive Officer


And The Board of Directors


1847 Holdings LLC


590 Madison Avenue, 18th Floor


New York, NY 10022


 



	
Re:

	
Amendment to Management Services Agreement dated April 15, 2013 (the “MSA”), between 1847 Holdings LLC (“Holdings”) and 1847 Partners LLC (“Partners”).







 


Gentlemen,







As per our discussion, this letter amends the MSA as set forth below. Capitalized terms used, but not otherwise defined, herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.







Holdings shall not pay to Partners the management fee specified in Section 7.1 of the MSA with respect to the business of 1847 Management Services, Inc. and its subsidiaries PPI Management Group, LLC and Christals Management LLC (collectively, “1847 Management”). In lieu of paying Partners such management fee, 1847 Management shall pay Partners directly a flat quarterly fee equal to $43,750 so long as Partners provides the Services to Holdings with respect to 1847 Management. Holdings shall be required to pay the management fee set forth in Section 7.1 of the MSA in connection with all other Services provided to Holdings other than to 1847 Management.







Except as modified by this letter, the Agreement remains unmodified and in full force and effect.


 





	 	Sincerely,	 
	 	 	 
	 	Ellery W. Roberts	 
	 	Chief Executive Officer	 





 






ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO AS OF THE DATE FIRST ABOVE WRITTEN:


 




	1847 HOLDINGS LLC	 	1847 Management Services, Inc.	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	
/s/ Ellery W. Roberts

	 	By: 	
/s/ Ellery W. Roberts

	 
	 	
Ellery W. Roberts, Manager

	 	 	
Ellery W. Roberts, President
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3676

To amend the District of Columbia Spouse Equity Act of 1988 to provide

for coverage of the former spouses of judges of the District of Columbia

courts.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 22, 1993

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the District of Columbia

A BILL

To amend the District of Columbia Spouse Equity Act of

1988 to provide for coverage of the former spouses of

judges of the District of Columbia courts.

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

3 SECTION 1. COVERAGE OF FORMER SPOUSES OF JUDGES

4 OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS UNDER

5 SPOUSE EQUITY ACT.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2 of the District of Co7 lumbia Spouse Equity Act of 1988 (sec. 1–3001, D.C.

8 Code) is amended by striking ‘‘(A) and (C)’’.
2

•HR 3676 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the enact3 ment of the District of Columbia Spouse Equity Act of

4 1988.

Æ
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Christino Rio, the Chief Executive Officer,
and Benson Lim, the Chief Financial Officer, of Advanced Ventures Corp. (the
Company), each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his
knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012,
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Christino Rio_______________
Christino Rio Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive
Officer) 
  Date: August 20, 2012

/s/ Benson Lim________________
Benson Lim Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial
Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) 
  Date: August 20, 2012

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 Advanced
Ventures Corp. and will be retained by Advanced Ventures Corp. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

__________

---
#### Robert WHITAKER, Petitioner, v. WINN DIXIE STORES, INC., et al., Respondents.

No. 40341.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 21, 1971.

Rehearing Denied June 14, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION Casey Gadbury, Director Office of the National TRU Program Carlsbad Field Office Department of Energy P.O. Box 3090 Carlsbad, NiV1 88221

Dear Mr. Gadbury:

We received your letter dated August 15, 2008, requesting the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) concurrence on the revised draft recertification Ietter you plan to issue to the Hanford Site. Your request is in accordance with the Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) procedures that are intended to ensure that the Department of Energy's (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) site certifications eorrelate appropriately with EPA approvals for waste characterization activities at DOE transuranic (TRU) waste generator sites.

On July 17, 2008, EPA, approved Hanford's TRU waste characterization program for characterizing contact-handted (CH) waste prior to its disposal at the WIPP. The inspection reports are available in the EPA Air pocket No. A-98-49; Item II-A4-101.

EPA concurs that the waste characterization equipment, procedures and waste streams encompassed in DOE's draft reeertifrcation letter comport with all of EPA's existing approvals for CH waste at Hanford.

Thank you for providing us with an opportunity to review the draft recertification letter for Hanford. If you have any questions or coneerns, please contact Ed Feltcorn at (202) 343- 9422 or Rajani Joglekar at (202) 343-9462.

Sincerely,

;ef ~ Tom Peake, Director Center for Waste Management and Regulations

InternetAddress(URL)® http://wurov.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable s Pnnted with Vegetabie Oil Sased Inks on 100! Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Papercc: Electronic Distribution

Ava Holland_ CBFO Vernon Daub, CBFO Courtland Fesmire, CBFO Norma Castaneda, CBFO Martin Navarrete, CBFO Dennis Miehls, CBFO Allison Pangle, CTAC Wayne Ledford, CTAC Steve Zappe, NMED
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 17, 2020.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, January 17, 2020

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20D0234. KELLY J. CROISSANT v. MONA N. CROISSANT.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

11V177
#### Glenn ALLERTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-978.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 22, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 20, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal quashed.
#### Gerald Clifford FREWER, Appellant, v. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a municipal corporation, Appellee.

No. 67-244.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Feb. 20, 1968.

Rehearing Denied March 15, 1968.

Schlissel & Scher, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Joseph A. Wanick, City Atty. and Ira M. Elegant, Asst. City Atty., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, who was plaintiff in the trial court, suffered a final judgment for the defendant. On this appeal two points are raised. The first urges an abuse of discretion by the trial judge, and the second urges that the statute of limitations should not have been held to run from the date of the accrual of the action but from some later date.

Appellant’s first point must be decided adversely because of the wide discretion in the trial court as to the allowance of amendments. Lee v. Sovereign Camp., W.O.W., 113 Fla. 472, 152 So. 17 (1934); see also McSwiggan v. Edson, Fla.1966, 186 So.2d 13.

Appellant’s second point has been decided adversely to him in Gordon v. City of Belle Glade, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 449.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in the previously filed Registration Statement (Form S-8,
No. 333-16123) of our report dated September 1, 2000, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of InSight Health Services Corp. included
in the Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2000.


/s/ ARTHUR ANDERSON LLP



Orange County, California
September 6, 2000
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 165 (Friday, August 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 42963]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18091]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #15640 and #15641; California Disaster Number CA-
00289]


Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of 
California

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a 
disaster for the State of CALIFORNIA dated 08/10/2018.
    Incident: West Fire.
    Incident Period: 07/06/2018 through 07/09/2018.

DATES: Issued on 08/10/2018.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 10/09/2018.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/10/2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster 
loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally 
announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:
Primary Counties: California.
Contiguous Counties:
    San Diego: Imperial, Orange, Riverside.
    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere.................      3.875
  Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      1.938
  Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere.................      7.220
  Businesses Without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      3.610
  Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere...      2.500
  Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.500
For Economic Injury:
  Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit      3.610
   Available Elsewhere.......................................
  Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15640 5 
and for economic injury is 15641 0.
    The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are California.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Linda E. McMahon,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-18091 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Exhibit 32





SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS





This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1934, as amended.





The undersigned, who are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of American Realty Capital – Retail Centers of America, Inc. (the “Company”), each hereby certify as follows:





The quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company, which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all information contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated this 10th day of May 2011





/s/ Nicholas S. SchorschNicholas S. SchorschChief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Brian S. BlockBrian S. BlockExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)
#### Frank Daniel SLADDEN and American Indemnity Company, Petitioners, v. Angela M. EGBERT and Harold Egbert, her husband, Respondents.

No. 43329.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 20, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 271 So.2d 491.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                      
                                      
                                   EXHIBITS
                                      
                           APAC TELESERVICES, INC.
                                      
       EXHIBIT (11) - STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                 (UNAUDITED)
                                      
<TABLE>                                       
<CAPTION>
                               THIRTEEN WEEKS ENDED    TWENTY-SIX WEEKS ENDED
                               --------------------    ----------------------
                               JUNE 29,    JUNE 30,    JUNE 29,     JUNE 30,
                                 1997        1996        1997         1996
                               ---------   ---------   ----------   ---------
<S>                            <C>         <C>         <C>          <C>
Primary shares:
  Average shares outstanding      46,729      46,240       46,634      46,220
  Net effect of dilutive stock
   options - based upon the
   treasury stock method using
   average market price            1,443       1,820        1,424       1,649
                               ---------   ---------   ----------   ---------
     Total shares                 48,172      48,060       48,058      47,869
                               =========   =========   ==========   =========
Net income                        $8,613      $7,121      $17,086     $11,836
                               =========   =========   ==========   =========
Net income per share               $0.18       $0.15        $0.36       $0.25
                               =========   =========   ==========   =========

Fully diluted shares:
  Average shares outstanding      46,729      46,240       46,634      46,220
  Net effect of dilutive stock
  options - based upon the
   treasury stock method using
   quarter-end market price        1,443       1,820        1,424       1,832
                               ---------   ---------   ----------   ---------
     Total shares                 48,172      48,060       48,058      48,052
                               =========   =========   ==========   =========
Net income                        $8,613      $7,121      $17,086     $11,836
                               =========   =========   ==========   =========
Net income per share               $0.18       $0.15        $0.36       $0.25
                               =========   =========   ==========   =========
</TABLE>

                                      
                                Page 13 of 14
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO**

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

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

 

In connection with the filing with the SEC the Quarterly Report ofNorth American Scientific, Inc. (“Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter endedJuly 31, 2004 (the “Report”), L. Michael Cutrer, President and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company and, James W. Klingler, Senior Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each herebycertify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his knowledge:

 

(1)                           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

(2)                           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of thedates and for the periods covered by the Report.

 

 
| Date:  January 27, 2005 | By:    | /s/ L. Michael Cutrer                               |   |
|------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                         |   | L. Michael Cutrer                                   |   |
|                         |   | Chief Executive Officer                             |   |
|                         |   |                                                |   |
|                         |   |                                                |   |
| Date:  January 27, 2005 | By:    | /s/ James W. Klingler                               |   |
|                         |   | James W. Klingler                                   |   |
|                         |   | Senior Vice President and 

Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
#### John R. STEVENS, Appellant, v. Linda Sue STEVENS, Appellee.

No. 71-1043.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 18, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Stuart WILSON, Appellant, v. Joyce WILSON, Appellee.

No. 77-2289.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 3, 1978.

Charles L. Neustein, Miami, for appellant.

Gold & Fox, Coral Gables, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL* and KEHOE, JJ.

*

BARKDULL, J., participated in the decision in this case but did not hear oral argument.

KEHOE, Judge.

Appellant seeks review of a final judgment awarding attorney’s fees to ap-pellee, as a result of a modification proceeding instituted by appellee in October of 1976. The parties were divorced in 1970. The record reflects that the only evidence in regard to the amount of attorney’s fees was the testimony of appellee’s counsel. The general rule is that the self-serving nature of the testimony given by an attorney who performs services for which an attorney’s fee is sought precludes a trial court from making an award based solely on that attorney’s testimony. See, e. g., *Benitez v. Benitez,*337 So.2d 408 (Fla.4th DCA 1976); and *Ortiz v. Ortiz,*211 So.2d 243 (Fla.3d DCA 1968). In our opinion, this general rule is applicable in the present case; accordingly, because the final judgment entered by the trial court was not supported by competent substantial evidence, the final judgment is reversed.

Reversed.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

RITA MAE MINGGIA,

Petitioner,

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent.

______________________ 

2014-3136

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-0831-13-0218-I-1.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

O R D E R

 J. Elliott Field moves to withdraw as counsel of record 

for Rita Mae Minggia. 

Upon consideration thereof,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The motion is granted.

Case: 14-3136 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 11/07/2014
2 MINGGIA v. OPM

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

Daniel E. O’Toole 

Clerk of Court

s27

Case: 14-3136 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 11/07/2014
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING DOCKET NO. OJP (DOJ) 1540

AG ORDER NO. 3255-2011; RIN1121-AA77

76 FR 11705 (MARCH 3, 2011)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: CERTIFICATION PROCESS FOR

STATE CAPITAL COUNSEL SYSTEMS

MEETING SUMMARY

RE: MEETING WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CONSTITUTION PROJECT

DATE/TIME OF MEETING: MAY 20, 2011 11:00 AM-12:00 PM 

PLACE OF MEETING: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, RFK BUILDING 

ATTENDEES: 

FROM THE CONSTITUTION PROJECT:

Christopher Durocher, Government Affairs Counsel, Criminal Justice Program, Washington, 

D.C.

Adrienne Lee Benson, Associate, Criminal Justice Program, Washington, D.C.

FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE:

Pamela Harris, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy

Lisa Ellman, Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy

Caroline Nguyen, Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy

SUMMARY OF MEETING: 

The representatives of the Constitution Project requested a meeting with the Department of 

Justice to discuss their reactions to and comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 

which was formally published in the Federal Register on March 3, 2011. The representatives

introduced the session by explaining that they were generally pleased with the proposed rule, which 

they considered a substantial improvement over the previous (now removed) rule on the subject. 

They expressed gratitude to the Department for listening to their comments in the prior comment 

period, and offered their support and assistance to the Department in finalizing this proposed rule. 

The Department explained that this meeting, in accordance with policy, was to be a listening 

session only. The Department emphasized that it welcomed comments to the proposed rules, and 

would carefully consider all submissions. 

The meeting continued with the representatives of the Constitution Project making a number 

of specific suggestions regarding the proposed rule. In particular, the representatives expressed their 

views that: 1) the certification process should be insulated from conflicts of interest within the 

Department; 2) states should have discretion to designate someone other than the state attorney 

general to seek certification on behalf of a state; 3) the compensation provisions were potentially 

inadequate; and 4) the rule should expressly identify specific litigation expenses. They also 
commented on the provisions governing attorney competence, noting their belief that that the 

provision lacked an enforcement mechanism, and suggesting that the rule require counsel to possess 

at least some experience in capital or habeas proceedings in particular. Finally, they requested that 

the rule describe in greater detail what is required from states with regard to the certification process 

itself, and also that the rule include a requirement that outside affected parties, such as state defender 

services, receive notice of certification requests and decisions. 

The meeting ended with the Department encouraging the representatives to lay out the full 

extent of their recommendations in their written comments.