alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.1

                                  ADDENDUM # 2

LOGO                                                                        LOGO

Office of COLBURN HUNDLEY, INC., REALTOR GRAND RAPIDS (city), Michigan Phone:
616-742-5200 Fax: 616-742-5207 Email: todd@colburnhundley.com Date: April 25,
2006 (time)

1.   ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENT DATED October 31, 2005 covering property commonly
     know as:

     Lots 43-48, inclusive, Shady Park, as recorded in Liber 9 of Plats,
     Page 54, Muskegon County Records, situated in the County of
     Muskegon, MI
     Permanent Parcel Number ________________________

2.   THIS ADDENDUM TO BE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE AGREEMENT, WHICH IS AMENDED AS
     FOLLOWS:

     Pursuant to Page 3 Sec 10c of said Buy and Sell Agreement, Buyer shall be
     allowed an additional 60 days to perform its obligations as stated. _______
     ___________________________________________________________________________
     ___________________________________________________________________________
     ___________________________________________________________________________
     ___________________________________________________________________________
     ___________________________________________________________________________
     ___________________________________________________________________________

3.   BY SIGNING BELOW BUYER/TENANT ACKNOWLEDGES HAVING READ AND RECEIVED A COPY
     OF THIS AGREEMENT.


Witness:                            Entity: COMMUNITY SHORES BANK
         -------------------------


Buyer's Address:                    By: /s/ Heather Brolick
                 -----------------      ----------------------------------------
----------------------------------      (Note: Please sign as you wish your name
                                        to appear on the final papers.)

                                    Printed name of Signatory: Heather Brolick
                                    Its: President

4.   BY SIGNING BELOW SELLER/LANDLORD ACKNOWLEDGES HAVING READ AND RECEIVED A
     COPY OF THIS AGREEMENT.


Witness:                            Entity: Baumgardner-Hogan Real
         -------------------------          Estate, LLC


Buyer's Address:                    By: /s/ Larry Baumgardner
                 -----------------      ----------------------------------------
----------------------------------      (Note: Please sign as you wish your name
                                        to appear on the final papers.)

                                    Printer name of Signatory: Larry Baumgardner
                                    Its: Member
                                         April 28, 2006

                                      LOGO
OMB Control No. 2060

- 0336

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL OPERATING PERMIT, 40 CFR PART 71

FORM PTE

- POTENTIAL TO EMIT SUMMARY

INSTRUCTIONS: Complete this form once for the facility. You may find it helpful to comple te form EMISS for each emissions unit before

completing this form. For each emissions unit with emissions that count towards applicability, list the emissions unit ID an d the

PTE for the air pollutants listed below. If there are other air pollutants not listed below for which the source is a major source,

provide attachments naming the air pollutant and showing calculation of the total for that pollutant. Round values to the

nearest tenth of a ton. Add all values together in each column and enter the to tal in the space provided at the bottom of the

table. Also report these totals in section J of form GIS

.

Emissions Unit ID Regulated Air Pollutants and Pollutants for which the Source is Major

NOx

(tons/yr) VOC

(tons/yr) SO2

(t ons/yr) PM10

(tons/yr) CO

(tons/yr) Lead

(tons/yr) HAP

(tons/yr)



### Tank 60 0.0512 4.98 E

- 05



### Tank 300 0.0287 2.71E

- 05



### Tank 302 0.1894 1.84E

- 04



### Tank 304 0.05 67 5.45E

- 05



### Tank 306 0.0993 9.59E

- 05



### Tank 308 0.2218 2.14E

- 04



### Tank 310 0.2569 2.84E

- 04



### Tank 312 0.3517 3.42E

- 04



### Tank 314 0.2117 2.05 E

- 04



### Bulk Solids Storage 2.56 0.0188



### Fugitive Equipment Leaks 0.0738 0.00 01



### Boiler 1 4.51 0.248 0.027 0.343 3.79

Emergency Generator #1 0.441 0.035 0.029 0.031 0.095 0.0071

Emerg ency Generator #2 0.441 0.035 0.029 0.031 0.095 0.0071

TOTALS 74. 99 1 6

. 3 3 66. 7 9 1 3

. 1 5 3 1

. 04 0. 0968 29.44
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

1

Study Report 

Title: Summary of Existing { } Type B Aggregation State 

Data 

Report Date: October 30, 2014

File Reference: 

Principal Investigator(s): {

 

}

Sponsor: { }

EPA Reference: TS-ZF02NT 
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

2

Study Report 

Summary of Existing { } Type B Aggregation State

Data 

1) Introduction: 

In connection with product research and development activities, the Sponsor routinely 

characterizes particulates present in its { } (Test 

Solutions). {

} made with the 

Test Solutions. 

2) Purpose & Scope: 

This study provides characterization data on the aggregation state of the Sponsor’s Test 

Substance both when in normal liquid suspensions (Test Solution) and in condensed phase. 

This summary is to be used to inform chemical identification processes{,

}. 

3) Administrative Organization: 

This report was prepared by principal investigator, { }, based upon 

measurements carried out in the Sponsor’s { } facility. The underlying analyses 

were performed by { } or staff working under his direction. 

4) Test Substance: 

The study was conducted on the TS-ZF02NT new chemical substance (Test Substance), after 

processing as described in TS-ZF02NT, forming stable aqueous suspensions of the Test 

Substance (Test Solutions). {

.} 

5) Principle and Study Design: 

The {

.} 

{

} 
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

3

{

 

} 

6) Sample Handling and Preparation:

i) Solution Phase Characterization: Samples are prepared and analyzed in accordance with 

the Sponsor’s standard operating procedure for measuring the shake stability of the Test 

Substance, { } are included here in Appendix I. 

ii) {

}

7) Study Results: 

The Test Solution Exhibit 1 used for this study had the following solution metrics: 

 pH: { }

 { }

 Optical Density (OD): { } 

 { } 

Test Solution Exhibit 1 has {

} are typical of the Sponsor’s stable colloidal 

Solutions. {

.} 
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

4

{

}
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

5
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

6
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

I-1 

Appendix I 

Standard operating procedure { } 
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

I-2 

{

 } 
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

I-3 

 } 
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

I-4 
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

I-5 
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

I-6 
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

I-7 
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

I-8 

Appendix II 

Standard Operating Procedure {
II-2 
II-3 
II-4 
III-1 

Appendix III 

Standard Operating Procedure { } 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
III-2 
III-3 
III-4 
III-5 

 
III-6
#### Pine Equity NY, Inc., Appellant, v Manhattan Real Estate Equities Group LLC et al., Respondents.

[770 NYS2d 16]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered on or about November 21, 2002, which denied plaintiffs motions for a preliminary injunction and for leave to serve an amended complaint, granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and awarded defendants costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In moving to amend its complaint, plaintiff sought to buttress its claim that it had been fraudulently induced to sell its interest in defendant Manhattan Real Estate Equities Group after that entity had unsuccessfully sought to acquire an interest in the Commander Hotel, in reliance upon defendants’ oral representations that they were no longer interested in pursuing that transaction. Plaintiff’s reliance on such representations was unreasonable because the parties’ fully integrated agreement terminating their affiliation made no reference to the Commander transaction, it stated that the parties waived any claims arising from a transaction not specifically set forth in the *249agreement, and it contained a general merger clause *(see Danann Realty Corp. v Harris,*5 NY2d 317 [1959]). Plaintiff failed to substantiate the falsity of defendants’ alleged oral representation that the “deal was dead” *(see Cohen v Houseconnect Realty Corp.,*289 AD2d 277 [2001]; *cf. Abramson v Leo,*240 App Div 343, 353 [1934]).

Plaintiff’s argument that it needed discovery, under CPLR 3212 (f), to oppose defendants’ summary judgment motion, is unpreserved and unpersuasive. We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Sullivan, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000065312
<NAME> METRO TEL CORP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         199,541
<SECURITIES>                                   100,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  451,592
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,000    
<INVENTORY>                                  1,515,171
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,318,198
<PP&E>                                         563,383
<DEPRECIATION>                                 487,243
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,267,622
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          309,318
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        50,757
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,907,547
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,267,622
<SALES>                                        923,012
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               923,012
<CGS>                                          590,719
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  369,321
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                20,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (37,028)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (14,800)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (22,228)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (22,228)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss.1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18  U.S.C.ss.1350),
the undersigned,  Anthony J. Miceli,  Chief Financial  Officer of United Capital
Corp., a Delaware  corporation  (the  "Company"),  does hereby  certify,  to his
knowledge, that:

The  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended June 30, 2003 of the
Company (the "Report") fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, and the information  contained in
the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition
and results of operations of the Company.

                                       By: /s/ Anthony J. Miceli
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Anthony J. Miceli
                                           Chief Financial Officer
                                           August 5, 2003
```
No. 12-8356.

#### McGruder *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
|                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                          
|View History:                                                           
|                                                                        
|No chart available.                                                     
|No chart available.                                                     
|                                                                        
|                                                                        
|Nevada Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals from Shale Gas (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
#### Com. v. Pritchett

06/08/2016

76 WAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 496
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1772

To reduce Federal employment to the levels proposed in the Vice President’s

Report of the National Performance Review.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 22, 1993

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

to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To reduce Federal employment to the levels proposed in

the Vice President’s Report of the National Performance

Review.

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

3 SECTION 1. REDUCTION OF FEDERAL FULL-TIME EQUIVA4 LENT POSITIONS.

5 (a) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, the

6 term ‘‘agency’’ means an Executive agency as defined

7 under section 105 of title 5, United States Code, but does

8 not include the General Accounting Office.

9 (b) LIMITATIONS ON FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT POSI10 TIONS.—The President, through the Office of Manage-
2

S 1772 IS

1 ment and Budget (in consultation with the Office of Per2 sonnel Management), shall ensure that the total number

3 of full-time equivalent positions in all agencies shall not

4 exceed—

5 (1) 2,095,182 during fiscal year 1994;

6 (2) 2,044,100 during fiscal year 1995;

7 (3) 2,003,846 during fiscal year 1996;

8 (4) 1,963,593 during fiscal year 1997;

9 (5) 1,923,339 during fiscal year 1998; and

10 (6) 1,883,086 during fiscal year 1999.

11 (c) MONITORING AND NOTIFICATION.—The Office of

12 Management and Budget, after consultation with the Of13 fice of Personnel Management, shall—

14 (1) continuously monitor all agencies and make

15 a determination on the first date of each quarter of

16 each applicable fiscal year of whether the require17 ments under subsection (b) are met; and

18 (2) notify the President and the Congress on

19 the first date of each quarter of each applicable fis20 cal year of any determination that any requirement

21 of subsection (b) is not met.

22 (d) COMPLIANCE.—If at any time during a fiscal

23 year, the Office of Management and Budget notifies the

24 President and the Congress that any requirement under

25 subsection (b) is not met, no agency may hire any em-
3

S 1772 IS

1 ployee for any position in such agency until the Office of

2 Management and Budget notifies the President and the

3 Congress that the total number of full-time equivalent po4 sitions for all agencies equals or is less than the applicable

5 number required under subsection (b).

6 (e) WAIVER.—Any provision of this section may be

7 waived upon—

8 (1) a determination by the President of the ex9 istence of war or a national security requirement; or

10 (2) the enactment of a joint resolution upon an

11 affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of

12 each House of the Congress duly chosen and sworn.

Æ
*May 9, 2017*

2017-Ohio-2730.]

2015-0746.

#### State ex rel. Escajadillo v. Koch Foods of Cincinnati, L.L.C.

Franklin App. No. 14AP-267, 2015-Ohio-1226. On appellant’s application for dismissal. Application granted. Cause dismissed.
Summary Sheet of Director Compensation



 Exhibit 10.1 
 SUMMARY SHEET OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION 
 The following summary sets forth current rates of cash and other
compensation for non-employee directors and advisory directors. Director compensation rates were last adjusted on May 10, 2006. Employee directors receive an annual retainer of $3,000. 
  

				
	 Cash Compensation
	  		
	 Board Retainer
	  		
	 Non-employee Directors
	  	$	50,000
	 Non-employee Advisory Directors
	  	$	21,000
	 Committee Retainer (Member / Chair)
	  		
	 Audit
	  	$	8,000 /$12,000
	 Compensation
	  	$	6,000 /$10,000
	 N&CG
	  	$	4,000 / $5,000
	 Presiding Director Retainer
	  	$	12,000

 Board and committee retainers are subject to reduction for missed meetings, unless the absence was for medical
reasons. Directors may defer their cash compensation by participating in the Company’s Deferred Compensation Program (filed December 2, 2005 as Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Form 8-K). 
 In addition to cash compensation, non-employee directors receive an annual grant of restricted stock with a $50,000 market value. The stock is granted under the
Company’s Flexible Stock Plan, amended and restated May 4, 2005 (filed as Appendix B to the Company’s March 23, 2005 Proxy Statement). Restricted stock vests after one year and carries voting and dividend rights from the grant
date. 
 The Company also provides term life insurance for two of its non-employee directors, R. Ted Enloe III and Richard T. Fisher. The cost of this
coverage in 2005 was $1,391 each. The Company no longer offers life insurance to directors, but has maintained the coverage on these two directors.
No. 12-7823.

#### Birdette *v.*AT&T Mobility et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
March 25, 2014

CAAP-13-0000020

#### E*Trade Bank v. Chadwick

Affirmed
No. 12-6939.

#### Minh Dung Nguyen *v.*Levitas.

Sup. Ct. S. D. Certiorari denied.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-24-00324-CV

Mark Malone, M.D., PA d/b/a Advanced Pain Care, Appellant

v.

Asim Aijaz, M.D., Appellee

FROM THE 200TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-GN-23-005275, THE HONORABLE CATHERINE MAUZY, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Mark Malone, M.D., PA d/b/a Advanced Pain Care filed a motion to dismiss this 

appeal asserting that the parties have reached an agreement on the issues that are the subject of 

this appeal. He represents that Asim Aijaz, M.D. does not oppose the motion. We grant the 

motion and dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2).

__________________________________________

Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Smith and Theofanis

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: June 11, 2024
No. 12-7715.

#### Woods *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
•' tl-

^ ^ ^ t ^ ^ ^ ^ -^^^ ^ -?^^^ - >^ C. ^ ^-^- ^ ..^.^ ^ 

y<^^ti::^•^,^ ^ 

r n ^r n
|                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                            
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)              
|View History: Annual                                        
|View History: Annual                                        
|View History:                                               
|                                                            
|Kentucky Natural Gas Total Consumption  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                            
|                                                            
|Kentucky Natural Gas Total Consumption  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                            

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |         |         |         |         |         |         |         | 227,931 | 205,129 | 218,399
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 225,168 | 208,974 | 227,920 | 223,226 | 225,470 | 234,080 | 211,049 | 229,799 | 225,295 | 206,833
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 232,099 | 223,034 | 225,924 | 229,983 | 255,434 | 270,958 | 271,845 | 283,678 | 340,125 | 344,326
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 328,830 | 349,263 | 386,001 |         |         |         |         |         |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
No. 12-357.

#### Sekhar *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari granted.