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








Exhibit 10.25




SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE


THIS SECOND AMENDMENT (“Amendment 2”) is executed as of the 18th day of May, 2016, between Kalberer Company, an Oregon corporation (“Landlord”) and Pixelworks, Inc., an Oregon corporation (“Tenant”).


Landlord and Tenant are parties to the Office Lease (“Lease”), dated September 10, 2008 and Amendment dated July 1, 2013.  The Lease and Amendment are for approximately 4,875 rentable square feet, Suite 101 (“Premises”) in the Durham Plaza Building (“Building”) located at 16760 Upper Boones Ferry Road, Lake Oswego, Oregon.


NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree to modify the Lease and Amendment as follows:


		
	1.
	As-Is.  Tenant accepts the Premises in as-is condition with the following work provided by the Landlord:


		
	a.
	Professionally shampoo the carpets and touch up paint within the Premises.


		
	b.
	Repair light fixtures in the kitchen.


		
	c.
	Replace all malfunctioning soffit light fixtures within the Premises.




		
	2.
	Section I, Term of Lease:  This Section is hereby amended such that the current term of the Lease will continue through December 31, 2019, regardless of when the actual Commencement Date occurred.  The definition of the term “Expiration Date” shall hereby mean and refer to December 31, 2019.




		
	3.
	Section K, Base Rent Adjustment:  Effective January 1, 2017, Section 1.1(K) of the Lease is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:




Month        $ Per RSF    Base Rent    
Month 1        $0.00        $0.00
Months 2-12        $24.00        $9,750.00    
Months 13-24    $24.72        $10,043.00
Months 25-36    $25.46        $10,343.00


		
	4.
	Section L, Base Year:  The base year of the Lease is modified as follows:


Real Property Taxes for 2016-17 / Operating Expenses 2017


		
	5.
	Section O, Security Deposit:


Tenant currently has a security deposit of $12,244.83 on account with Landlord.  No additional deposit shall be required from Tenant.


		
	6.
	Extension Option:  Tenant shall have one (1) option to extend the lease for a three (3) year period.  The rental rate for the option period shall be at fair market rates.  Tenant shall notify Landlord of its intention to extend the lease no later than six (6) months prior to the end of the then-current lease term.  All other terms and conditions in Section 5 of the First Amendment to Lease, dated July 1, 2013 will remain in effect.










All other terms and conditions of the Lease and Amendment shall remain in effect.
	
			
	LANDLORD
	 
	TENANT

	Kalberer Company
	 
	Pixelworks, Inc.

	By: /s/ Patrick Gortmaker
	 
	By: /s/ Steven Moore

	Its:  President
	 
	Its:  VP & CFO

	Date:  May 18, 2016
	 
	Date:  May 18, 2016
**Exhibit 99.7**
**ACCOUNTANTS’ CONSENT**
The Board of Directors of Extendicare Inc.
We hereby consent to the use of our auditors’ report dated February 19, 2004 onthe consolidated balance sheets of Extendicare Inc. as at December 31, 2003 and2002, and the consolidated statements of earnings (loss), shareholders’ equityand cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December31, 2003 included in Extendicare Inc.’s Annual Report, and our auditors’ reportdated February 19, 2004 on the related supplemental note entitled“Reconciliation of Canadian and United States Generally Accepted AccountingPrinciples” and “Comments by Shareholders’ Auditors for U.S. Readers OnCanada-U.S. Reporting Differences” dated February 19, 2004 included in theAnnual Information Form, all of which are incorporated by reference on thisForm 40-F.
We also consent to the incorporation by reference to such reports datedFebruary 19, 2004 in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-5504) ofExtendicare Inc.
/s/ **KPMG**LLP
#### Ezelle JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 30175.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 17, 1958.

Joe J. Newman, Houston, for appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Thomas D. White and Alex Guevara, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant was charged by complaint and information with operating and assisting in operating an open saloon upon certain premises, alleged to be a place where distilled liquor and liquor composed and compounded in part of distilled spirits were sold and offered for sale for beverage purposes by the drink, and where such liquors were sold and offered for sale for human consumption on said premises where same were sold and offered for sale.

The jury found appellant guilty and assessed his punishment at a fine of $1,000.-00, from which judgment he appeals, contending that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction and that the trial court erred in his charge.

*707Two inspectors of the Texas Liquor Control Board, acting' under cover, arranged through the manager of the motel where they registered for admittance to Club DeLaine located upon the premises described in the information.

They were escorted to a table by the manager who called appellant, a waiter, and instructed him to “take care of us.”

The inspectors ordered “bourbon and 7-Up” and “bourbon and water”, and were served three drinks each by appellant, for which they paid him $4.50.

One of the inspectors preserved a sample of the drinks served him by spewing it into a bottle after taking it in his mouth.

The inspectors testified that they could not tell what percentage of bourbon or alcohol was contained in the mixed drinks but could tell it was alcohol and “it tasted like bourbon.”

The sample preserved was chemically tested by a chemist of the Texas Liquor Control Board who testified that it contained ten percent of alcohol by volume and that the fluid was compounded and composed in part of distilled spirits.

In his charge to the jury the trial court said: “Our statute provides that liquor shall mean any alcoholic beverage containing alcohol in excess of four percent by weight. You are instructed that whisky contains alcohol in excess of four percent by weight.”

Appellant urges that the record is silent as to whisky being sold and that the charge in effect instructed the jury that bourbon was whisky.

Assuming that such was the effect of the court’s charge, we see no injury to appellant.

“Bourbon” used in describing a drink means whisky, the dictionary definition being “Whisky produced from corn in Bourbon County, Kentucky; hence, a similar whisky from a mash of corn only or chiefly corn.”

The mixed drinks served the inspectors contained alcohol in excess of four percent, under the chemist’s testimony.

We find the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction and no reversible error appears.

The judgment is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6602

KEVIN ALEXANDER MOSS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

LLOYD L. WATERS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA95-2884-S)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 12, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Alexander Moss, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing most

of the claims in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We dismiss

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not

appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The

order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable

interlocutory or collateral order.

We deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss

the appeal as interlocutory. 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
#### Innes v. Drexel.

Tax Title: statute of limitations. Action, begun June 23, 1888, by the holder of the patent title, to quiet the same as against a tax title. The lot was sold in 1872 for the taxes of 1871. The tax deed was executed in 1881 and recorded in 1883. The lot was unenclosed and unoccupied, and not in the actual possession of any one, from the date of the tax sale to the recording of the tax deed. *Held*that the tax title was extinguished by the special statute of limitations (See Rev., sec. 790; Code, sec. 902; *Eldridge v. Kuehl,*.27 Iowa, 160; *La Buev. King,*74 Iowa, 288); — the rule being that the statute begins to run from the time when the purchaser *might*obtain his tax deed, and that after five years from that time that title, and all rights dependent upon it, are extinguished.

*Appeal from Council Bluffs Superior Court.*— Hon. E. E. Aylesworth, Judge.

Filed, October 2, 1889.

Action in equity to determine the title to a certain lot in Council Bluffs, brought June 23, 1888. The agreed statement of facts upon which the case was submitted shows that the plaintiff is the owner of the patent title; that the lot was sold November 11, 1872, for the taxes of 1871; that the tax deed was executed June 22, 1881, and recorded July 2, 1883; that defendant is the owner of said tax title, and that the lot was open, unenclosed and unoccupied, and not in actual possession of any one, from said eleventh day of November, 1872, until said second day of July, 1883. The case was submitted to the court on the agreed statement of facts, and decree was rendered cancelling defendant’s tax deed, and quieting title in the plaintiff, with judgment for costs against the defendant. The defendant appeals.

*254
      *A. W. Askwith,*for appellant.

*Walter I. Smith*and *J. E. E.*McGee, for appellee.

Given, C. J.

The only question presented by this appeal is whether defendant was barred of all rights under his tax certificate at the time he obtained the tax deed in controversy. Revision, section 790, provides that no action for the recovery of real property, sold for the non-payment of taxes, shall lie unless the same be brought within five years after date of the sale. In *Eldridge v.*Kuehl, 27 Iowa, 160, it was held that this meant completed sale; that is, from the execution and recording of the treasurer’s deed. Code, section 902, provides that the action shall not lie unless the same be brought within five years after the treasurer’s deed is executed and recorded. In *La Rue*v. King, 74 Iowa, 288, this court held that the statute of limitations begins to run against a purchaser at a tax sale at the time when he might obtain a deed; that is, three years after the date of sale; and after five years from the time it begins to run not only is the tax title extinguished, but all rights which are dependent upon it. This fully meets the only question presented by the appeal, and sustains the decree of the superior court. The judgment of the superior court is Aeeirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                            LEV PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
              FORM 10-QSB FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2005
                 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I am the Chief Executive Officer of Lev Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"). I am delivering this certificate in connection with
the Form 10-QSB of the Company for the three months ended March 31, 2005 and
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Form 10-QSB").

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
the Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: May 19, 2005
                                             /s/ Joshua D. Schein
                                             -------------------
                                             Joshua D. Schein
                                             Chief Executive Officer
II

Calendar No. 93

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 225

[Report No. 104–70]

To amend the Federal Power Act to remove the jurisdiction of the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission to license projects on fresh waters in

the State of Hawaii.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 12 (legislative day, JANUARY 10), 1995

Mr. AKAKA introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

APRIL 27 (legislative day, APRIL 24), 1995

Reported by Mr. MURKOWSKI, without amendment

A BILL

To amend the Federal Power Act to remove the jurisdiction

of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to license

projects on fresh waters in the State of Hawaii.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 225 RS

1 SECTION 1. PROJECTS ON FRESH WATERS IN THE STATE

2 OF HAWAII.

3 Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act is amended

4 by striking ‘‘several States, or upon’’ and inserting ‘‘sev5 eral States (except fresh waters in the State of Hawaii,

6 unless a license would be required by section 23 of the

7 Act), or upon’’.

Calendar No. 93

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 225

[Report No. 104–70]

A BILL

To amend the Federal Power Act to remove the juthe State of Hawaii. Commission to license projects on fresh waters in risdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory

APRIL 27 (legislative day, APRIL 24), 1995

Reported without amendment
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 4.16

                         PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT


                   Between Registrant and Guttman & Associates



                                       
<PAGE>   2
                         PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

      This Agreement memorializes an Agreement between Helionetics, Inc., with
its place of business at 6849 Hayvenhurst Avenue, Van Nuys, California 91406
(herein referred to as "Client") and Guttman & Associates with his\their place
of business at (herein referred to as "Employee\Consultant") as through August 
1996. In consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and other 
valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is acknowledged, the 
parties do hereby agree as follows:

      I.    QUALIFICATION: The Employee has special skill and and experience in
            certain fields of activity in which the Client is interested.

      II.   SERVICES RENDERED: Client engaged the nonexclusive services of
            Employee in 1995\1996 and Employee rendered substantial services to
            Client over the period As Agreed Upon.

      III.  COMPENSATION: The Client issued to Employee an amount of 5,000
            restricted shares of the Client's common stock, in payment in full
            for the aforesaid services rendered through The Period Agreed Upon.

      IV.   ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This document represents the complete agreement
            between the parties and may be modified or amended only by executed
            written agreements. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance
            with the laws of the State of California.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF: The parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement as of
the day and year noted above.

"Client"                                  "Consultant"
HELIONETICS, INC.



By:/s/ E. MAXWELL MALONE                        /s/ GUTTMAN & ASSOCIATES
   -----------------------------          ------------------------------------
   E. Maxwell Malone                      Guttman & Associates.
   Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-29-1996
<CASH>                                          40,550
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  100,527
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (26,757)
<INVENTORY>                                    100,680
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               254,673
<PP&E>                                          61,629
<DEPRECIATION>                                (29,227)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 311,695
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          107,868
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           215
<OTHER-SE>                                     203,576
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   311,695
<SALES>                                        612,840
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               612,840
<CGS>                                          412,064
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  187,474
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,089
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,534
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,857
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (17,179)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             25,036
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,036
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1

                  Certification of Principal Executive Officer
            Pursuant to pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a)
               of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended

      I, Erich Spangenberg, Chief Executive Officer of AFG Enterprises, Inc.
(the "Company"), certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company;

      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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

      4. As the registrant's certifying officer, I am responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and I have:

      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 my 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 period covered by this
report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May __, 2005                   /s/ Erich Spangenberg
                                     ------------------------
                                     Erich Spangenberg, Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 200 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 200

  To amend title 18, United States Code, to regulate the manufacture, 
 importation, and sale of any projectile that may be used in a handgun 
            and is capable of penetrating police body armor.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 11 (legislative day, January 10), 1995

   Mr. Bradley (for himself, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. Simon) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 18, United States Code, to regulate the manufacture, 
 importation, and sale of any projectile that may be used in a handgun 
            and is capable of penetrating police body armor.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Cop Killer Ammunition Ban Act of 
1995''.

SEC. 2. REGULATION OF THE MANUFACTURE, IMPORTATION, AND SALE OF 
              PROJECTILES THAT MAY BE USED IN A HANDGUN AND ARE CAPABLE 
              OF PENETRATING POLICE BODY ARMOR.

    (a) Expansion of Definition of Armor Piercing Ammunition.--Section 
921(a)(17)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i);
            (2) by striking the period at the end of clause (ii) and 
        inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(iii) a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that 
        the Secretary determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to be 
        capable of penetrating body armor.''.
    (b) Determination of the Capability of Projectiles To Penetrate 
Body Armor.--Section 926 of such title is amended by adding at the end 
the following:
    ``(d)(1) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
subsection, the Secretary shall promulgate standards for the uniform 
testing of projectiles against the Body Armor Exemplar, based on 
standards developed in cooperation with the Attorney General of the 
United States. Such standards shall take into account, among other 
factors, variations in performance that are related to the length of 
the barrel of the handgun from which the projectile is fired and the 
amount and kind of powder used to propel the projectile.
    ``(2) As used in paragraph (1), the term `Body Armor Exemplar' 
means body armor that the Secretary, in cooperation with the Attorney 
General of the United States, determines meets minimum standards for 
protection of law enforcement officers.''.
                                 <all>
```