alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.16

 

SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT TO A LEASE CONTRACT

 

Lessor: China Bioway Biotech Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Party A”)
 Legal Address: No. 39, Shangdi Xi Road, Haidian District, Beijing

 

Lessee: Sinovac Biotech Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Party B”)
 Legal Address: No. 39, Shangdi Xi Road, Haidian District, Beijing

 

WHEREAS, Party A and Party B signed a lease contract on August 12, 2004, under which Party A leased its No.2 Factory located in the Peking University Biological Park at No. 39, Shangdi Xi Road, Haidian District, Beijing, to Party B for use (hereinafter referred to as the “Original Lease Contract”), and now they unanimously agree to enter into the following supplemental agreement regarding the change of the lease term set forth in the Original Lease Contract after mutual consultation:

 

1.                                      Both parties agree that the lease term set forth in the Original Lease Contract will be changed from April 8, 2013 to April 7, 2033.

 

2.                                      Party A undertakes that it will, during the useful life of the factory leased for use under the Original Lease Contract, continue to lease out the leased factory to Party B on the conditions specified in the Original Lease Contract and its supplemental agreement.

 

3.                                      This Agreement is an integral part of the Original Lease Contract and shall have the same legal force as the Original Lease Contact.  Save for  any provisions agreed upon by both parties herein, the other provisions of the Original Lease Contract shall remain unchanged and be implemented in accordance with the Original Lease Contract.

 

4.                                      This Agreement shall become effective when it is signed and sealed by both parties.

 

5.                                      This Agreement is executed in two originals and both parties shall each keep one original.  All of them shall have the same legal force.

 

 

	
Party A:
    	
China Bioway Biotech Group Co., Ltd.
    [Chop of China Bioway Biotech Group   Co., Ltd.]
    	
 
    	
Party B:
    	
Sinovac Biotech Co., Ltd.
    [Chop of Sinovac Biotech Co., Ltd.]
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Legal Representative:
    	
 
    	
/s/
    	
 
    	
Legal Representative:
    	
 
    	
/s/
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
(Authorized Representative)
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Authorized Representative
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
(Signature or seal)
    	
 
    	
 
    	
(Signature or seal)
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Date:
    	
April 8, 2013
    	
 
    	
Date:
    	
April 8, 2013
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-16-00638-CV

CON-CORP CONSTRUCTION, L.L.C.,

Appellant

v.

J.D. COLLISION EXPRESS, L.L.C.,

Appellee

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CI07146

Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. We 

ORDER that appellant, Con-Corp Construction L.L.C., bear all costs of this appeal.

SIGNED December 7, 2016.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Exhibit 23.2

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-18485, 333-18487, 333-18493, 333-29467,
333-33185, 333-36469, 333-90777, 333-90779, 333-90781 and 333-36586) of Covance
Inc. of our report dated January 30, 2001, relating to the consolidated
financial statements of Covance Inc. as of December 31, 2000 and for each of the
two years in the period then ended, which appear in this Annual Report on Form
10-K.



                                       /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
                                       PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
                                       Florham Park, New Jersey
                                       February 28, 2002
? #

# 8

6 œ.

>

nœ.

>

Allegro q. = 120

f

arco

œ.

> #œ.

> nœ>

œ

>

œ

>

œ

>

œ

>#œ>

For ceremonial version,

jump to m. 100, 2nd beat

fi

J

œ

^

‰ ‰ Œ. œ Jœ œ Jœ

5

P

œ Jœ œ J

œ œ J

œ œ

. œ. œ.

? #

#  ̇. œ J

œ œ J

œ œ Jœ œ

. œ. œ. œ J

œ #œ Jœ

f

œ Jœ œ Jœ œ

J

œ œ Jœ

13

P

œ Jœ œ

j

œ œ

j

œ œ

. œ. œ.

? #

#  ̇. œ J

œ œ Jœ œ

j

œ œ

. œ. œ. œ J

œ#œ Jœ

f

 ̇. œ J

œ œ Jœ

21

P

œ Jœ œ J

œ œ J

œ œ

. œ. œ.

? #

#  ̇. œ J

œ œ Jœ œ J

œ œ

. œ. œ. œ J

œ œ Jœ

f

 ̇. œ J

œ œ Jœ

29

P

œ Jœ œ

. œ. œ.

œ Jœ œ Jœ

? #

# œ J

œ œ

. œ. œ

.  ̇. œ. œ. œ J

œ œ

. œ. œ.

J

œ ‰ ‰ œ.

P

œ Jœ œ Jœ

37

œ Jœ œ J

œ œ J

œ œ

. œ. œ.

? #

#  ̇. œ J

œ œ J

œ œ Jœ œ

. œ. œ. œ J

œ #œ Jœ

f

œ Jœ œ Jœ œ

J

œ œ Jœ

45

P

œ Jœ œ

j

œ œ

j

œ œ

. œ. œ.

? #

#  ̇. œ J

œ œ Jœ œ

j

œ œ

. œ. œ. œ J

œ#œ Jœ

f

 ̇. œ J

œ œ Jœ

53

P

œ Jœ œ J

œ œ J

œ œ

. œ. œ.

? #

#  ̇. œ J

œ œ Jœ œ J

œ œ

. œ. œ. œ J

œ œ Jœ

f

 ̇. œ J

œ œ Jœ

61

P

œ Jœ œ

. œ. œ.

œ Jœ œ Jœ

ALWAYS READY, ALWAYS THERE

Words & Music by

CW4 David A. Myers

40th Army Band, VTARNG

Cello

The Official March of the National Guard Bureau -Full Orchestra VersionDedicated to the Men and Women, Soldiers and Airmen of America's National Guard
? #

# œ J

œ œ

. œ. œ

.  ̇. œ. œ. œ J

œ œ

. œ. œ.

J

œ ‰ ‰ œ.

>

F

œ Jœ œ Jœ

69

œ Jœ œ J

œ œ J

œ œ

. œ. œ.

? #

#  ̇. œ J

œ œ J

œ œ Jœ œ

. œ. œ. œ J

œ #œ Jœ

f

œ Jœ œ Jœ œ

J

œ œ Jœ

77

P

œ Jœ œ

j

œ œ

j

œ œ

. œ. œ.

? #

#  ̇. œ J

œ œ Jœ œ

j

œ œ

. œ. œ. œ J

œ#œ Jœ

f

 ̇. œ J

œ œ Jœ

85

P

œ Jœ œ J

œ œ J

œ œ

. œ. œ.  ̇.

? #

# œ J

œ œ Jœ œ J

œ œ

. œ. œ. œ J

œ œ Jœ

f

 ̇. œ J

œ œ Jœ

93

P

œ Jœ œ

. œ. œ.

œ Jœ œ Jœ œ J

œ œ

. œ. œ

.

? #

#

 ̇. œ. œ. œ J

œ œ

. œ. œ.

Ceremonial version,

from m. 4 fi

J

œ ‰ ‰ œ.

>

F

‰ œ

- œ

- œ œ œ

101 -

F

œ

J

œ œ J

œ œ. œ. œ œ

- œ

- œ

J

œ

-

? #

# œœ œ

- œ œ œ

- œ

- œ œ œ œ œ œ J

œ œ

J

œ œ. J

œ

‰ ‰ ‰ œ

- œ

- œ œ œ

- 109

œ

J

œ œ J

œ œ. œ œ

- œ

-

? #

#

œ. Jœ

‰ ‰

œ

- œ œ œ œ œ œ

-

œ œ œ œ œ œ

J

œ œ J

œ

J

œ

‰ ‰ Œ. ‰ œ

- œ

- œ œ œ

117 - œ

J

œ œ J

œ

? #

#

œ. œ. œ œ

- œ

- œ

J

œ

- œ

-

œ œ œ œ œ œ

- œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ. J

œ

‰ ‰ ‰

œ

> œ

> œ. > 125

? #

#

œ. Jœ

‰ ‰ ‰ œ

>œ

>œ. >

J

œ

‰ ‰

œ. > œ

>

œ

>

œ

> œ

>

J

œ

>

ƒ

œ

>

J

œ

> >

œ. >

 ̇.

sfp

 ̇.  ̇. Jœ

^

‰ ‰ Œ.

ƒ

ALWAYS READY, ALWAYS THERE

Official March of the National Guard Bureau

-Cello2
EXHIBIT 99

Certification of CEO and CFO 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 Aztar Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended October 3, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Paul E. Rubeli, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Robert M. Haddock, as Chief Financial Officer of 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 the best of his knowledge:
     (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.PAUL E. RUBELI
Name:  Paul E. Rubeli
Title: Chairman of the Board and
       Chief Executive Officer
Date:  November 8, 2002ROBERT M. HADDOCK
Name:  Robert M. Haddock
Title: President and
       Chief Financial Officer
Date:  November 8, 2002
This certification accompanies the Report 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 by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
 THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fortune Industries, Inc., an Indiana corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John F. Fisbeck, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
                of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:
 
 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.
   Date:  January 14, 2009
 By:  /s/ John F. Fisbeck
 John F. Fisbeck,
 Chief Executive Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIO TORRES, 

Petitioner-Appellant,

 v.

MARTIN BITER, Warden, 

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-55111

D.C. No. 

2:10-cv-03537-JLS-SP

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 9, 2016

Pasadena, California

Before: SCHROEDER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and SMITH,** Chief District

Judge.

 

Mario Torres, a California prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his

petition for writ of habeas corpus. Torres was sentenced to a total term of sixteen

years to life after being convicted by a jury of first degree robbery, in violation of

FILED

DEC 08 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable William E. Smith, Chief United States District Judge

for the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation.
Cal. Penal Code § 211, and possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of Cal.

Penal Code § 12021(a)(1).

On appeal, Torres contends that the district court erred in concluding that he

did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel during his state court proceedings. 

The district court reached its decision after holding an evidentiary hearing. 

In that hearing, Torres’s only evidence supporting his claim was his own

testimony that he would have accepted a plea offer but for his counsel’s incorrect

advice. The district court found Torres’s testimony not credible on the basis of a

number of contradictory and illogical statements by Torres during that hearing. 

The district court’s findings were not clearly erroneous. The district court properly

concluded that, even assuming inadequate performance by counsel, Torres failed to

show prejudice from his counsel’s performance. See Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).

AFFIRMED.

2
Michigan Supreme 

Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 27, 2015

Order 

March 27, 2015

150582-7 & (70)

MORGAN T. FISHER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

JORDI LLORE JUSTRIBO,

Defendant-Appellee.

SC: 150582-7

COA: 314802; 315214; 315622; 

316073; 317059; 317359

Leelanau CC: 2009-008198-DM

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the stipulation to dismiss the application for leave to 

appeal is GRANTED. The dismissal is with prejudice and without costs or fees to either 

party.
#### Commonwealth v. Fletcher

*340
      *Richard C. Brittain, District Attorney,*for Commonwealth.

*Robert L. Marks,*for defendant.

September 1, 1977

MYERS, *P.J.,*

Defendant was arrested and charged with running a red light, in violation of section 1028 of The Vehicle Code of April 29, 1959, P.L. 58, as amended, 75 P.S. § 1028(a)(3). After being found guilty by a district justice, defendant filed an appeal to this court. We held a de novo hearing, and the matter is now ready for disposition.

The instant charge arose out of an accident which occurred at the intersection of U.S. Route 11 and Danville State Hospital Road. Defendant was traveling east on Route 11, when his vehicle struck the side of a car operated by John McClintock, who was in the process of pulling onto Route 11 from the Hospital Road.

At the hearing, McClintock testified that he had a green light. He admitted, however, that he did not look for approaching traffic on Route 11 before entering the intersection.

McClintock’s testimony about the green light was substantiated by William Zanella, who was heading east on Route 11. According to Zanella, the light was “definitely red” for traffic on Route 11.

Defendant also testified. He stated that the light was red as he was approaching the intersection, but that it then changed to green. Defendant maintained that his light was green at the moment of impact.

The traffic fights in question have been a source of frustration and concern to many motorists. The fights are not properly secured, with the result that they blow around in the wind, thereby making it *341difficult, if not impossible, for an approaching driver to see them. The lights are also nearly impossible to see when the sun is behind them. Furthermore, for a number of weeks after they were initially erected last year, the lights facing eastbound traffic on Route 11 were crooked, so that they were only marginally visible to oncoming motorists. Moreover, on numerous occasions, the lights have been out of order. Finally, the lights are erected at a point on Route 11 where the speed limit is 55 mph, yet there are no conspicuous signs warning unwary motorists of the lights’ presence.

In short, these traffic fights are a hazard. They have been the source of a number of accidents and many more near misses.

From an engineering standpoint we would be charitable in noting that the construction of these fights was not one of Penn D.O.T. engineers’ better efforts.

We do not think Penn D.O.T. should expect impossible feats from the motorists who travel on Pennsylvania’s highways. Under the circumstances, we are compelled to find defendant not guilty.

ORDER OF COURT

And now, September 1, 1977, after hearing held de novo, we find defendant not guilty.

Costs to be paid by the County of Montour.
**EXHIBIT 32.2****(1)**

**STATEMENTOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

I, Ken Owyang, the chieffinancial officer of SupportSoft, Inc. (the “Company”), certify for thepurposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Codethat, to the best of my knowledge,
| (i)    |   | the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for  the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the “Report”), fully complies with the  requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
| (ii)   |   | the information contained in the Report fairly  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of  operations of the Company.                                                             |

 
| Date: August 2, 2007 | ** ** | ** **                         |
|----------------------|------------|------------------------------------|
| ** **           | ** ** | ** **                         |
| ** **           |       | /s/ KEN OWYANG                     |
|                 | ** ** | **Ken  Owyang**                    |
|                 | ** ** | **Chief  Financial Officer and**   |
|                 | ** ** | **Senior  Vice President**         |
|                 | ** ** | **of  Finance and Administration** |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by 18 U.S.C. § 1350 has been provided toSupportSoft, Inc. and will be retained by SupportSoft, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----

(1)                                     Thematerial contained in this Exhibit 32.2 is not deemed “filed” with the SEC andis not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under theSecurities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether madebefore or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporationlanguage contained in such filing, except to the extent that the registrantspecifically incorporates it by reference.

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7536

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM STEPHEN JAVAGE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior

District Judge. (CR-95-7, CA-98-64-2)

Submitted: April 27, 2000 Decided: May 19, 2000

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Stephen Javage, Appellant Pro Se. Sherry L. Muncy, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* The district court granted a certificate of appealability.

2

PER CURIAM:

William Stephen Javage seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

1999). We have reviewed the record, including the transcript of

the hearing on the motion, and the district court’s order and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on reasoning of the

district court.* See United States v. Javage, Nos. CR-95-7; CA-98-

64-2 (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 8, 1999). 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.

AFFIRMED
www.iata.org International Air Transport Association

1201 F St., NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20004 USA

Tel: +1 202 628 9292

Fax: + 1 202 628 9448 

### B EFORE 

### T HE


### US D EPARTMENT OF 

### T RANSPORTATION



### W ASHINGTON



### , D.C.

In the matter of:

Motion of Airlines for America (A4A)

A nd Regional Airline Association for a Temporary Exemption from

14 C.F.R. § 259.4

Comments of the International Air Transport Association

The International Air Transport Association (IATA), on behalf of its approximately

2 4 0 airline members around the world, appreciates the opportunity to support the motion made by Airlines for America ( A4A ) and the Regional Airline Association ( RAA ) requesting a moratorium on the Department’s so

- ca lled “tarmac delay rule” in light of the impacts of FAA furloughs on air traffic efficiency

in the United States

. IATA’s members represent 84 % of the world’s air traffic

, including the majority of US and foreign carriers that fly into and out of the United States. As such, we have a significant interest in the Department’s decision in

this matter.

IATA believes the Department must grant a moratorium of the tarmac delay rule in light of the significant increase in delays resulting from the FAA’s furloughs. Even before the recent furloughs, the majority of flight delays were caused by

factors outside the control of airlines

. To continue to punish airlines for delays

that the FAA has stated repeatedly are caused directly by government action would defy logic, fairness and sound economics. DOT fines are designed to incentivize airlines to take certain actions it deems in the public interest. In this case, it is government action, not airline action that is the issue. As such, fines or

restrictions on airlin e action are not appropriate.

IATA believes the impact of furloughs on delays merely illuminates the foundational flaw of the tarmac delay rule. While the minimal number of lengthy delays has been reduced under the rule, the underlying causes of delays h ave Docket No.:

DOT

- OST

- 2013

- 0 0842

not been addressed by the US Government . Furthermore, the dramatic increase in cancellations has caused far more harm to passengers who would otherwise reach their destinations in a delayed but timely manner. We urge the Department to not only approve the moratorium but to also reassess the basis for the tarmac delay rule as a whole

.

Sincerely,

Douglas E. Lavin Regional Vice President, North America International Air Transport Association

1201 F St., NW

Suite 650 Washington, D.C. 20004 Tel: (202) 628

- 9292 Fax: (202) 628

- 9448 Email: lavind@iata.org
Attachment N

Work Sheets used to C a lculate EPA and F ederal Government Labor

Co s ts

NAICS: 999100

EPA or Federal Government

Labor Category: Formula Managerial Technical Clerical

Unloaded Hourly Rate 1 = W $55.67 $36.02 $20.38

Benefits Percentage 2 Lb = B/W 44% 44% 44%

Benefits per hour B = W*Lb $24.54 $15.88 $8.98

Loaded Hourly Rate Wb = W + B =

W(1+Lb) $80.21 $51.90 $29.36

Overhead Percentage 3 Lo = OH/Wb 50% 50% 50%

Overhead per hour OH = Wb*Lo $40.11 $25.95 $14.68

Fully Loaded Hourly

Rate Wf = Wb + OH

= W + B + OH $120.32 $77.85 $44.05

1. Data Source: BLS ( http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999100.htm ) ; May 2011 data

NAICS 999100

- Federal Executive Branch

Standard Occupational Codes:

Management: 11

- 0000, Management Occupations

Technical: 19

- 0000, Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations

Clerical: 43

- 0000, Office and Administrative Support Occupations

2. Fringe benefits/wage per hour. The average for non farm, non federal civilian workers.

3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition

, EPA

- 452

- 02

- 001, Janu ary 2002, pg. 2

- 34. The loading for indirect costs is within the range of 20

- 70% of the load labor rate (wage + benefits) suggested in EPA guidance.
Exhibit 32.2  Certification  Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned hereby certifies that:  (1) I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Inland Land Appreciation Fund II, L.P.  (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;  (2) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (3) The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Inland Land Appreciation Fund II, L.P.  By:Inland Real Estate Investment CorporationGeneral PartnerBy:/s/ Donna UrbainName:Donna UrbainTitle:Principal Financial Officer with respect to Inland Land Appreciation Fund II, L.P.Date:November 13, 2009