alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR FEE SIMPLE UNDIVIDED INTEREST AND
                         ASSIGNMENT
                             OF
                     NET LEASE AGREEMENT

      THIS ASSIGNMENT made and entered into this 28th day of
December,  1998, by and between AEI REAL ESTATE  FUND  XVIII
LIMITED   PARTNERSHIP,  a  Minnesota  Limited   Partnership,
("Assignor")  and  AEI NET LEASE INCOME &  GROWTH  FUND  XIX
LIMITED   PARTNERSHIP,  a  Minnesota  limited   partnership,
("Assignee");

     WITNESSETH, that:

      WHEREAS,  on the 28th day of December, 1998,  Assignor
entered   into   Commitment,  Net  Lease  Agreement,   ("the
Agreements") for that certain property located at 6959  East
Broad Street, Columbus, OH (the "Property") with Tumbleweed,
LLC, as Seller/Lessee; and

      WHEREAS,  Assignor  desires  to  assign  an  undivided
interest of its rights, title and interest in, to and  under
the  Agreement  and  as to the fee simple  interest  in  the
Leased Premises to the Assignees as hereinafter provided;

     AEI NET LEASE INCOME & GROWTH FUND XIX
     LIMITED PARTNERSHIP                          60.00%
     undivided interest as tenant in common

      NOW, THEREFORE, for One Dollar ($1.00) and other  good
and  valuable  consideration, receipt  of  which  is  hereby
acknowledged,  it is hereby agreed between  the  parties  as
follows:

     1.    Assignor  maintains as tenant in common  a  forty
     percent (40.00%) right, title and interest in,  to  and
     under the Agreements and in the fee simple interest  in
     the  Leased Premises, to have and to hold the same unto
     its successors and assigns;

     2.    Assignor  assigns all of its  rights,  title  and
     interest in, to and under the Agreements and in the fee
     simple  interest in the Leased Premises to the Assignee
     as  noted above, to have and to hold the same unto  the
     Assignee, its successors and assigns;

     3.    Assignee  hereby  assumes all  rights,  promises,
     covenants,   conditions  and  obligations   under   the
     Agreements  to be performed by the Assignor thereunder,
     and  agrees  to be bound for all of the obligations  of
     Assignor under the Agreements from this day forward.


     4.     The   Purchase  Price  paid  by  the   Assignees
     designated herein is equal to the prorata share of  the
     amounts funded as of the date of this Agreement.

All  other  terms  and  conditions of the  Agreements  shall
remain unchanged and continue in full force and effect.

AEI REAL ESTATE FUND XVIII LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
("Assignor")

BY:  AEI FUND MANAGEMENT XVIII, INC.


By: /s/ Robert P Johnson
        Robert P. Johnson, its President


AEI NET LEASE INCOME & GROWTH FUND XIX
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ("Assignee")

BY: AEI FUND MANAGEMENT XIX, INC.


By: /s/ Robert P Johnson
        Robert P. Johnson, its President
Charles E. GENTRY, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 106051

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

FILED: September 11, 2018

Maleaner Ryna Harvey, Office of the State Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, Robert Jefferson Bartholomew, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., and Mary K. Hoff, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

*525Charles E. Gentry appeals from the "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order, Judgment, and Decree of Court" denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the Judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
----

            COUNCIL DECISION         

of 22 January 2007         

appointing three Swedish members and two Swedish alternate members to the Committee of the Regions

(2007/41/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 263 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Swedish Government,

Whereas:

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2010:

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 22 January 2007.

For the Council

The President

F.-W. STEINMEIER            

----

(1)OJ L 56, 25.2.2006, p. 75.

----
James E. EACKLES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 81011

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: August 28, 2018

Natalie Hull Hoge, Assistant Appellate Defender, Kansas City, MO, Attorney for Appellant.

Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, and Daniel N. McPherson, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.

Before Division Two: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Presiding Judge, and Lisa White Hardwick and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judges

**Order**

Per Curiam:

Mr. James Eackles appeals from the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Buchanan County, Missouri, denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum of law has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10084-10085]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3977]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending January 15, 2011

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier

[[Page 10085]]

Permits were filed under Subpart B (formerly Subpart Q) of the 
Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR 
301.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, 
or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. 
Following the Answer period DOT may process the application by 
expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a 
show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final 
order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2011-0005.
    Date Filed: January 11, 2011.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: February 1, 2011.
    Description: Application of Hangar 8 AOC Limited requesting a 
foreign air carrier permit to the full extent authorized by the Air 
Transport Agreement between the United States and the European 
Community and the Member States of the European Community to engage it 
to engage in: (i) Foreign charter air transportation of persons and 
property from any point or points behind any Member State of the 
European Union via any point or points in any Member State and via 
intermediate points to any point or points in the United States and 
beyond; (ii) foreign charter air transportation of persons and property 
between any point or points in the United States and any point or 
points in any member of the European Common Aviation Area; (iii) other 
charters pursuant to prior approval requirements; and (iv) 
transportation authorized by any additional route rights made available 
to European Community carriers in the future. Hangar 8 further requests 
exemption authority to the extent necessary to enable it to provide the 
services described above pending issuance of a foreign air carrier 
permit and such additional or other relief as the Department may deem 
necessary or appropriate.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2011-3977 Filed 2-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Sandra G. Sciutto, being the Chief Financial Officer of California Coastal Communities, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certify pursuant to the requirements
of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of my knowledge as of the date set forth below (i) the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
period ended December 31, 2002 which accompanies this certification (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.

|Dated:  February 27, 2003 |  | /s/SANDRA G. SCIUTTOSandra G. Sciutto Chief Financial
Officer
|------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
#### Benjamin I. Powell, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. Newman-Butler Company, a Corporation, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Decision Filed May 4, 1928.

Petition for Rehearing Denied July 19, 1928.

*Mitchell D. Price*and *Robert J. Boone,*for Plaintiff in Error.

*Loftin, Stokes & Galkins,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for *862the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment tó be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.

Decision Filed July 19, 1928.

A rehearing has been asked.

Per Curiam.

Whether the plaintiff had paid his occupation license is defensive matter. There is sufficient legal evidence of a promise by the defendant to support the verdict for the plaintiff.

Rehearing denied.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
The BUSINESS BANK OF SAINT LOUIS, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. BROWN & JAMES, P.C., Defendant/Respondent.

ED 105566

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: February 13, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 22, 2018 Application for Transfer Denied May 22, 2018

John L. Davidson, P.O. Box 31506, St. Louis, MO 63131, For Plaintiff/Appellant.

John L. Gianoulakis, Robert F. Murray, 1 North Brentwood Blvd., Suite 800, Clayton, MO 63105, For Defendant/Appellant.

Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Sherri B. Sullivan, J., and Kurt S. Odenwald, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

The Business Bank of Saint Louis (Appellant) appeals from the March 27, 2017 Final Judgment of the trial court entering summary judgment in favor of Brown & James, P.C. (Respondent) on Counts I and II of Appellant's Second Amended Petition and dismissing Count III for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude Respondent was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Counts I and II, *ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp.*, 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993) ; and Count III failed to state a claim. *Philips v. CitiMortgage, Inc.*, 430 S.W.3d 324, 329 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the decision pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT
      32.1


CERTIFICATION
      ACCOMPANYING PERIODIC REPORT


PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Donald
      J. Percenti, President and Chief Executive Officer of American Achievement
      Group
      Holding Corp., ACC Group Holding Corp. and American Achievement Corporation
      (the
“Companies”), hereby certify that:





(1) The
      Quarterly Report of the Companies on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended November
      24, 2007 (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 Companies as of the
      dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.





Date:
      January 24, 2008





/s/
                DONALD J. PERCENTIName:
            
            Donald
                J. PercentiTitle:
            
            President
                and Chief Executive Officer(principal
                executive officer)
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. RM96-1-029] 

                    On February 24, 2009, the Commission issued a final rule in the above-captioned proceeding, Order No. 587-T, that incorporated by reference into the Commission's regulations, revisions adopted by the North American Energy Standards Board to the business practices standards for natural gas pipelines.                     *Standards of Business Practices for Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines,*                     126 FERC  ¶ 61,129 (2009). The final rule was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on March 3, 2009, (74 FR 9162) and became effective April 2, 2009. Under the implementation schedule established in the rule, natural gas pipelines are required to implement the standards on August 1, 2009, and file tariff sheets to reflect the changed standards on June 1, 2009.                 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary.

 [FR Doc. E9-5774 Filed 3-17-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-3622

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Ken Trang Tran

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

 ____________

 Submitted: April 17, 2023

Filed: April 20, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.
Ken Tran appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1

after he pleaded

guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed

a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a

substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors

listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See

United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing

sentences for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse of discretion

standard; abuse of discretion occurs when the court fails to consider relevant factor,

gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commits a clear error

of judgment in weighing the appropriate factors); see also United States v. Mangum,

625 F.3d 466, 469-70 (8th Cir. 2010) (upward variance was reasonable where court

made individualized assessment based on facts presented). 

We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we

affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

1The Honorable John A. Ross, United States District Court Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri.

-2-
Exhibit 4.26
 19 May 2009
    
    (VODAFONE LOGO)
 
     (i)
    
    The Company will provide funds to cover costs as incurred by you in defending legal
proceedings brought against you in your capacity as, or as a result of your being or having
been, a Director of the Company including criminal proceedings and proceedings brought by the
Company itself or an Associated Company;(ii)
    
    The Company will indemnify you in respect of any proceedings brought by third parties,
including both legal and financial costs of an adverse judgment brought against you in your
capacity as, or as a result of your being or having been, a Director of the Company; and(iii)
    
    The Company will indemnify you for liability incurred in connection with any application
made to a court for relief from liability, where the court grants such relief.
  (i)
    
    Unsuccessful defence of criminal proceedings, in which instance the Company would seek
reimbursement for any funds advanced:
 Vodafone Group Plc




---



##### 



(ii)
    
    Unsuccessful defence of an action brought by the Company itself or an Associated
Company, in which instance the Company would seek reimbursement for any funds advanced;(iii)
    
    Fines imposed by regulatory bodies;(iv)
    
    Fines imposed in criminal proceedings; and(v)
    
    Liability incurred in connection with any application under Section 661(3) or (4) of the
Companies Act 2006 (acquisition of shares by innocent nominee) or section 1157 of the
Companies Act 2006 (general power to grant relief in case of honest and reasonable conduct),
where the court refuses to grant you relief, and such refusal is final. (For reference, a
summary of these sections is appended to this letter).
     
 I accept the terms of this letter./s/ Michel CombesMichel CombesChief Executive, Europe RegionVodafone Group Plc




---



##### 



Appendix
 Section 661(3) and (4) Companies Act 2006
  Section 1157 Companies Act 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5562 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5562

  To direct the Joint Committee on the Library to obtain a statue of 
     Constantino Brumidi for display in the Capitol Visitor Center.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 8, 2006

 Mr. Bilirakis (for himself, Mr. Pascrell, Mrs. Maloney, and Mr. Mica) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To direct the Joint Committee on the Library to obtain a statue of 
     Constantino Brumidi for display in the Capitol Visitor Center.

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

SECTION 1. STATUE OF CONSTANTINO BRUMIDI FOR CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER.

    (a) Agreement With Foundation of Hellenes.--
            (1) Agreement.--The Joint Committee on the Library shall 
        enter into an agreement with the Foundation of Hellenes under 
        which the Foundation shall provide a statue of Constantino 
        Brumidi and the Joint Committee shall accept the statue on 
        behalf of Congress, under such terms and conditions as the 
        Joint Committee and the Foundation may agree to (consistent 
        with applicable law).
            (2) Delegation of authority to architect of the capitol.--
        The Joint Committee on the Library may authorize the Architect 
        of the Capitol to enter into the agreement required under 
        paragraph (1) on its behalf, under such terms and conditions as 
        the Joint Committee may require.
    (b) Display in Capitol Visitor Center.--The statue provided and 
accepted pursuant to the agreement entered into under subsection (a) 
shall be displayed at a suitable location in the Capitol Visitor 
Center.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
necessary to carry out this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.1






Exhibit 10.1




Summary of 2009 Cash Bonuses




	 	 	 	 	 
	Name and Title	 	2009 Cash Bonuses	 
	Stephen H. Capp
	 	$	450,000	 
	Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	 	 	 	 
	John A. Godfrey
	 	$	350,000	 
	Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
	 	 	 	 
	Carlos Ruisanchez
	 	$	350,000	 
	Executive Vice President of Strategic Planning and Development
	 	 	 	 
	Alain Uboldi
	 	$	300,000	 
	Chief Operating Officer
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

RQ-URS, JV ) ASBCA No. 62700

)

Under Contract No. N69450-15-D-1624 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Jeffrey B. Baird, Esq.

Cory P. DiBene, Esq.

 Finch, Thornton & Baird, LLP

 San Diego, CA

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Craig D. Jensen, Esq.

 Navy Chief Trial Attorney

Matthew D. Bordelon, Esq.

 Trial Attorney

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE THRASHER

The parties have resolved their dispute and request that the Board enter judgment 

in favor of appellant.

It is the Board’s decision, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. §§ 7105(e), 7108(b), and the 

parties’ stipulation and agreement, that the appeal is sustained. In the nature of a consent 

judgment, the Board makes a monetary award to appellant in the amount of $170,000.00. 

This amount is inclusive of Contract Disputes Act interest. No further interest shall be 

paid.

Dated: September 1, 2021

JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

(Signatures continued)
2

I concur

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD

Administrative Judge

Vice Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I concur

J. REID PROUTY

Administrative Judge

Vice Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62700, Appeal of RQ-URS, 

JV, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: September 2, 2021

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Communication concerning public hearing request for proposed rule

DATE: August 4, 2011

FROM: H. Lynn Dail, Environmental Scientist

US EPA/OAQPS/AQPD/SLPG

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076

Posted in docket is correspondence received requesting public hearing and later correspondence 

withdrawing request.