alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Form of lease with Martin Family Group, L.L.L.P.



 Exhibit 10.1 

LEASE AGREEMENT 

GEORGIA, DECATUR COUNTY 

THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into between Martin Family Group, L.L.L.P. of Decatur County, Georgia, hereinafter called
Lessor 
 AND 

The Money Tree, Inc. of Decatur County, Georgia, hereinafter called Lessee. 

WITNESSETH 

For and in consideration of the rents to be paid as hereinafter stipulated, Lessor rents, lets and leases to Lessee the
following described property to-wit: 
 Building located at
                                        
hereinafter called “premises”. 
 Upon the following terms and conditions: 

TERM 

For a term of
                     years beginning
                     and ending
                    . 

RENT 

A monthly rent of
$                     per month, cash in advance for each month, beginning
                    . 

INSURANCE 

The Lessee shall carry insurance on the building in an amount equal to the appraisal or market value of said property.
Insurance must be sufficient to insure Lessor against any financial loss. Said insurance premiums shall be paid by the Lessee. Lessee shall be liable for and shall hold Lessor harmless in respect of damage or injury to the leased property, or the
person or property of Lessee, or the person or property of Lessee’s other guests, family members, licensees, customers or anyone else, if due to act or neglect of Lessee or anyone in Lessee’s control. 







 TAXES 

All taxes are to be paid by the Lessee. 

IMPROVEMENTS 

Lessee shall not make improvements or alterations upon premises without written authorization of Lessor. Lessee shall be
bound to maintain the outside of premises including the roof. Lessee shall be responsible for all repairs to the premises. 

PARTIES 

This Agreement shall bind the heirs, administrators, executors, and assigns of both parties. 

WITNESS THIS DAY, the parties signed below have caused this Agreement to be executed on this
                     day of
                    . 
  

					
	 Signed, sealed and delivered

in the presence of:
	 		 	MARTIN FAMILY GROUP, L.L.L.P.
			
	  	 		 	  
	Witness	 		 	 W. Derek Martin, President

Martin Investments, Inc.
 Managing General
Partner

			
	  	 		 	 
	Notary Public	 		 	
			
	 Signed, sealed and delivered

in the presence of:
	 		 	THE MONEY TREE, INC.
			
	  	 		 	  
	Witness	 		 	 Brad Bellville
 President


			
	  	 		 	 
	Notary Public
Case 1:01-cv-00067-HJW Document 109 Filed 09/22/2004 Page 1 of 1
Case: 3:17-mj-00478-PBS Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/16/17 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 1
Case: 3:17-mj-00478-PBS Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/16/17 Page: 2 of 10 PAGEID #: 2
Case: 3:17-mj-00478-PBS Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/16/17 Page: 3 of 10 PAGEID #: 3
Case: 3:17-mj-00478-PBS Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/16/17 Page: 4 of 10 PAGEID #: 4
Case: 3:17-mj-00478-PBS Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/16/17 Page: 5 of 10 PAGEID #: 5
Case: 3:17-mj-00478-PBS Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/16/17 Page: 6 of 10 PAGEID #: 6
Case: 3:17-mj-00478-PBS Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/16/17 Page: 7 of 10 PAGEID #: 7
Case: 3:17-mj-00478-PBS Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/16/17 Page: 8 of 10 PAGEID #: 8
Case: 3:17-mj-00478-PBS Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/16/17 Page: 9 of 10 PAGEID #: 9
Case: 3:17-mj-00478-PBS Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/16/17 Page: 10 of 10 PAGEID #: 10
Bureau of Labor Statistics

**Series Id: Series title:**  **Labor force status: Type of data:**  **Age: Years:**  **Year Qtr1**  **Qtr2 Qtr3**  **Qtr4 Annual**  **2011** 7773 Employed full time (persons who usually work Number in thousands 20 to 24 years 2011 to 2011 

### Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey **Original Data Value** LNU02500036Q **Not Seasonally Adjusted** (Unadj) Employed, Usually Work Full Time, 20-

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Generated on: May 16, 2011 (02:07:58 PM)
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

JEFFREY ANTONIO BROWN, 

Petitioner, : Case No. 3:17-cv-080 

- vs - District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz 

SHEA HARRIS, Warden, 

 Warren Correctional Institution, 

 : 

 Respondent. 

 DECISION AND ORDER 

 

 This habeas corpus case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion 

for Reconsideration (ECF No. 79). The Court finds the Motion is without merit and it is hereby 

DENIED. 

June 29, 2018. *s/Thomas M. Rose 

 _____________________________ 

 Thomas M. Rose 

 United States District Judge
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4240 

To provide for a grace period in which durable medical equipment suppliers 

may meet Medicare accreditation and surety bond requirements. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 8, 2009 

Mr. MELANCON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 

Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide for a grace period in which durable medical 

equipment suppliers may meet Medicare accreditation 

and surety bond requirements. 

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

3 SECTION 1. GRACE PERIOD FOR MEDICARE ACCREDITA4 TION AND SURETY BOND REQUIREMENTS 

5 FOR CERTAIN DMEPOS SUPPLIERS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—In the case of an entity which 

7 would qualify as a supplier under part B of title XVIII 

8 of the Social Security Act but for the entity’s failure to 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4240 IH

1 meet one or both requirements described in subsection (b), 

2 the entity shall be treated, for purposes of payment under 

3 such part for items the entity is licensed or otherwise rec4 ognized to provide under applicable State law, as having 

5 met such respective requirement during the period begin6 ning on the effective date of such requirement and ending 

7 on the date the entity first meets such requirement so long 

8 as the entity meets both such requirements not later than 

9 6 months after the date of the enactment of this section. 

10 (b) ACCREDITATION AND SURETY BOND REQUIRE11 MENTS DESCRIBED.—The requirements described in this 

12 subsection are— 

13 (1) the accreditation requirement of section 

14 1834(a)(20)(F)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 

15 U.S.C. 1395m(a)(20)(F)(i)); and 

16 (2) the surety bond requirement of section 

17 1834(a)(16)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 

18 1395m(a)(16)(B)). 

19 (c) NO APPLICATION TO COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION

20 PROGRAMS.—Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed 

21 as affecting any accreditation or surety bond requirement 

22 of a competitive acquisition program under section 1847 

23 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–3). 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 412 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the deduction for 

property taxes in determining the amount of the alternative minimum 

taxable income of any taxpayer (other than a corporation). 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2009 

Mr. ISRAEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the 

deduction for property taxes in determining the amount 

of the alternative minimum taxable income of any taxpayer (other than a corporation). 

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 ‘‘Homeowners Property 

5 Tax Relief Act of 2009’’. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

HR 412 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR PROPERTY TAXES ALLOWED IN 

2 DETERMINING INDIVIDUAL ALTERNATIVE 

3 MINIMUM TAXABLE INCOME. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Clause (ii) of section 56(b)(1)(A) 

5 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to general 

6 limitation on deductions applicable to individuals) is 

7 amended by striking ‘‘(1), (2), or’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

10 December 31, 2008. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Filed 7/1/15 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2015 ND 162

Tilmer Paul Everett, Petitioner and Appellant

v.

State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20140464

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce A. Romanick, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Tilmer Everett, self-represented, P.O. Box 5521, Bismarck, N.D. 58506, petitioner and appellant; on brief.

Dawn M. Deitz, Assistant State’s Attorney, 514 East Thayer Avenue, Bismarck, N.D. 58501, for respondent and appellee; on brief.

Everett v. State

No. 20140464

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Tilmer Everett appealed from district court orders summarily dismissing his application for post-conviction relief and denying his motion to substitute judge.  In 2007, a jury convicted Everett of gross sexual imposition, and this Court affirmed the judgment.  State v. Everett, 2008 ND 126, 756 N.W.2d 344.  Since his conviction, Everett has filed numerous post-conviction relief applications, which have been denied.  See Everett v. State, 2012 ND 189, 821 N.W.2d 385; Everett v. State, 2011 ND 221, 806 N.W.2d 438; Everett v. State, 2010 ND 226, 795 N.W.2d 37; Everett v. State, 2010 ND 4, 789 N.W.2d 282; Everett v. State, 2008 ND 199, 757 N.W.2d 530; see also State v. Everett, 2014 ND 191, 858 N.W.2d 652.  

[¶2]Everett contends in this appeal that the district court erred in denying his post- conviction relief application, arguing that the court denied his right to a fair appeal in a previous appeal by not ruling on the State’s motion for protective order and ruling after the fact on discovery issues; that the State denied his right to a fair trial in failing to disclose certain information and to provide a recording of a 911 call; and that the court erred in failing to hear his supplemental motion regarding withheld and newly-discovered evidence.  He also contends the court erred in denying his motion for a substitute judge, arguing that the court was biased and prejudiced regarding his motion to disqualify the judge, his motion to compel the State to transcribe two recorded phone calls, and in ruling the matter was res judicata.  

[¶3]We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1), (6), and (7); Klose v. State, 2008 ND 143, ¶ 10, 752 N.W.2d 192 (res judicata precludes claims or variations of claims raised in previous proceedings, and misuse of process precludes claims that could have been raised in a prior post-conviction proceeding or other proceeding).

[¶4]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

The Board of Directors 

Open Text Corporation:

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statementsnumbers 333-109505, 333-5474, 333-6934, 333-08606, 333-08604, 333-10220, 333-08608 and 333-87024 on Form S-8 of Open Text Corporation of our report dated August 30, 2004 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Open Text Corporation as ofJune 30, 2004, and 2003 and the consolidated statement of operations, shareholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three year period ended June 30, 2004, which reports appear in the June 31, 2004, annual report on Form 10-Kof Open Text Corporation. 

 

Our report refers to the Company’s adoption ofthe provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 141, “Business Combinations,” and Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets”. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

 

Toronto, Canada 

September 13, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3767 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3767

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 170 North Main Street in Smithfield, Utah, as the ``W. Hazen 
                    Hillyard Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 8, 2009

Mr. Bishop of Utah introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
            the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 170 North Main Street in Smithfield, Utah, as the ``W. Hazen 
                    Hillyard Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. W. HAZEN HILLYARD POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 170 North Main Street in Smithfield, Utah, shall be known 
and designated as the ``W. Hazen Hillyard Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``W. Hazen 
Hillyard Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
#### West *v.*State.

Opinion delivered February 18, 1929.

*L. F. Monroe*aud *Dexter Bush,*for appellant.

*Hal L. Norwood,*Attorney General, and *Robert F. Smith,*Assistant, for appellee.

McHaNey, J.

Appellant was convicted for possessing a still, and sentenced to one year in the penitentiary. He has not favored us with a brief in his behalf. In his motion for a new trial he says, the verdict is against the *29law and the evidence. It is against neither. There was ample evidence to send this case to the jury. Two witnesses testified that they found a new copper still, cap, stillworm and connecting tube in appellant’s smokehouse, located about twenty feet from his residence. They also found a barrel of rye mash and several empty kegs that smelled of liquor, and about three gallons and a half of wine, which tasted like corn liquor flavored with wine. Appellant denied that he possessed the still, or knew that it was in his smokehouse. The evidence was sufficient. *Martin*v. *State,*163 Ark. 103, 259 S. W. 6; *Bradley*v. *State,*171 Ark. 1083, 287 S. W. 387. The instructions of the court were the usual instructions, in cases of this kind, including presumption of innocence, burden of proof, and reasonable doubt. No objections or exceptions were made or saved to the instructions, and no request for any instruction was made by appellant.

Another assignment of error in the motion for a new trial is that the court erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a continuance on account of the absence of Lewis Marks. The record shows that on October 12,1928, appellant’s ease was set for trial for Tuesday, November 13, 1928, more than one month, during which appellant had ample time to get a subpoena served on Lewis Marks, which he did not do. Appellant testified at the trial that he thought Lewis Marks was in Prescott at the time. No diligence is shown, and the court correctly overruled his motion for a continuance.

Another assignment of error is that the court erred in refusing’ to permit Claude West to testify that Lewis Marks told him that the still found in appellant’s smokehouse belonged to him, Lewis Marks, and that the defendant had nothing whatever to do with it. This was purely hearsay, and inadmissible. Moreover, appellant could be guilty of possessing a still which belonged to Lewis •Marks. It is not necessary to be the owner of the still in order to be guilty of possessing it. Of course, if he did not own the still and did not know it was in his smoke*30house, he would not be guilty, and the court so told the jury.

These are all the assignments of error in the motion for a new trial, and, as we have seen, none of them are well taken.

Affirmed.
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 yearly report of Pharmaceutical Product Development, Inc. (“PPD”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David L. Grange, Chief Executive Officer of PPD, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to myknowledge: 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934;and 

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of PPD as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report. 

Date: February 26, 2010
Exhibit 10.29

LOGO

April 28, 2008

Mr. Richard Ambury

Dear Rich:

This letter confirms your compensation package and other employment terms as Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Star Gas Partners, L.P. and its subsidiaries (the Partnership) effective May 4, 2008. We are pleased to
offer you the following compensation package and other terms, the levels and conditions of which will be in effect during your employment unless otherwise modified by agreement between you and the Partnership.

Base Salary: Your base annual salary will be $300,000 per year. You will be paid $12,500.00 semi-monthly subject to withholding of all
applicable taxes and benefit deductions.

Benefit Coverage:You will be eligible to participate in the Partnerships
benefits plans in accordance with their terms and conditions.

Terms: It is understood that your employment is at will and
that either party can terminate the relationship at any time. If the Partnership terminates your employment for reasons other than for cause, or you terminate your employment for good reason, you will be entitled to one years salary as
severance. In consideration of this offer you agree that while you are an employee of the Partnership and for twelve months thereafter, you will not compete with the Partnership nor become involved either as an employee, as a consultant or in any
other capacity, in the sale of heating oil or propane on a retail basis. You agree that you will not reveal any confidential information concerning the Partnership and that you will not solicit, nor seek to hire, employees of the Partnership during
that time.

Please indicate your acceptance of this offer by signing and dating this letter below.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me.

Sincerely,



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|Daniel P. Donovan                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer



Accepted:Richard Ambury

Date
[4910-13-Pl

""","IN" ""lICl fill1/1-116 i/V

INm~I.S'S",N~TUF\li:

/!t(~~i/

<)ArE v

5/;0/2010

""'"''''' s,,,,,,,,,-

/lVI'I-II6' ((;.

S

'NIT\Al.5IS"' •••• TUllE

000

t;'h/2(jIO

s, ••eo..

~ &--

and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes the unsa

ACTION: Notice ofpropased rulcmaking (NPRM).

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new aifW[o11hiness directive (AD) for the produc 5

OATE

listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness .:::;:;/ ~

I 'lOU'lrNG "H'9O\.

infomlalion (MeAl) originated

~

by an aviation authority of another country lo identify

IHlT\Al.SSiG>lA'\lfll!'

- 7

(-~

'in(,?

RlN 2120-AA64

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

0(;75'

IDocket No. FA..<\-2010-****; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-061-ADI

Federal Aviation Administration

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A33r-200 and A330-300 Series Airplanes, <

Model A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, and 1\340-600 Series Airplanes

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA nON

14CFR Part 39

condition as:

Investigation conducted by Thales on* * * probes revealed oil residue

between the stator and the rotor parts of the AoA [angle of attack] vane

position resolvers. This oil residue was due to incorrect cleaning of the

machining oil during the manufacturing process orthe AoA resolvers. At

low temperatures, this oil residue becomes viscous (typically in cruise)

causi.ng lag of AoA vane movement.

* * * * * *

,"m"L.So'SI<;;"";UR~

I !LeVi>-

~~k'/Ib

-..nItG..sy"llOI.

-u)/ ·~r

Such condition could lead to discrepant AoA measurement. Ifnot

corrected, and irtwo or three AoA proJ)es were simultaneously affected

and provided wrong indications of the tOA to a similar extent, it could

lead to a late activation orthe angle of attack protection, which in

combination with flight at high angle of attack would constitute an unsafe

condition.

FAA Form 1360-14.1 (6-89) OFFICIAL FILE Copr

* u.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1S95· 769·211
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4077 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to make it an unfair or deceptive 

practice for any air carrier, foreign air carrier, or ticket agent to charge 

a fee for or accept payment from a passenger on a flight segment 

for the first piece of checked baggage. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 16, 2009 

Mr. MAFFEI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to make it an unfair 

or deceptive practice for any air carrier, foreign air carrier, or ticket agent to charge a fee for or accept payment from a passenger on a flight segment for the first 

piece of checked baggage. 

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 ‘‘The First Bag Flies 

5 Free Act’’. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4077 IH

1 SEC. 2. UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE PRACTICE. 

2 (a) NO COST FOR FIRST PIECE OF CHECKED BAG3 GAGE.—Section 41712 of title 49, United States Code, is 

4 amended by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(c) NO COST FOR FIRST PIECE OF CHECKED BAG6 GAGE.—It shall be an unfair or deceptive practice under 

7 subsection (a) for any air carrier, foreign air carrier, or 

8 ticket agent to charge a fee for or accept payment from 

9 a passenger on a flight segment for the first piece of 

10 checked baggage that weighs 50 pounds or less and for 

11 which the size does not exceed 62 inches (determined by 

12 adding the length, width, and height together).’’. 

13 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The requirements of section 

14 41712 of title 49, United States Code, shall become effec15 tive on December 15, 2009, or on the date of enactment 

16 of this Act, whichever is later. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS