alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Davis, California
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Joyce E Robinson
                        Location Support Staff

                        




                        
                        Administrative Officer
                        Phone: (530) 792-5504
                        
                        
                        Fax: (530) 792-5508(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
EX-10.2






Exhibit 10.2




DOLLAR FINANCIAL CORP.

NOTICE OF GRANT OF STOCK OPTION




Notice is hereby given of the following option grant (the “Option”) to purchase shares of
the Common Stock of Dollar Financial Corp. (the “Company”):



	 	 	 	 	 
	Optionee:

	 	

	 	

	 

	 	 
	 	 
	Grant Date:

	 	

	 	

	 

	 	 
	 	 
	Vesting Commencement Date:
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	Exercise Price: $

	 	 	 	 per share
	 

	 	 
	 	

	Number of Option Shares:
	 	            shares
	 
	 	 
	Expiration Date:

	 	

	 	

	 

	 	 
	 	 
	Type of Option:

	 	Nonqualified Stock Option
	 	

	 

	 	

	 	








Exercise Schedule: The Option shall become exercisable for the Option
Shares in a series of      successive equal      installments upon Optionee’s
completion of each year of Continuous Status as an Employee, Director or Consultant
over the      period measured from the Vesting Commencement Date. In no event
shall the Option become exercisable for any additional Option Shares after
Optionee’s cessation of Continuous Status as an Employee, Director or Consultant.



Optionee understands and agrees that the Option is granted subject to and in accordance with
the terms of the Dollar Financial Corp. 2007 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”). Optionee further
agrees to be bound by the terms of the Plan and the terms of the Option as set forth in the Stock
Option Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A. Optionee hereby acknowledges the receipt of
a copy of the official prospectus for the Plan in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B. A
copy of the Plan is available upon request made to the Corporate Secretary at the Company’s
principal offices.



1



Employment at Will. Nothing in this Notice or in the attached Stock Option Agreement
or in the Plan shall confer upon Optionee any right to continue in service for any period of
specific duration or interfere with or otherwise restrict in any way the rights of the Company (or
any Parent or Subsidiary employing or retaining Optionee) or of Optionee, which rights are hereby
expressly reserved by each, to terminate Optionee’s service at any time for any reason, with or
without cause.



Definitions. All capitalized terms in this Notice shall have the meaning assigned to
them in this Notice or in the attached Stock Option Agreement.



DATED:




DOLLAR FINANCIAL CORP.




By:

Title:





OPTIONEE




Address:



ATTACHMENTS


Exhibit A — Stock Option Agreement


Exhibit B — Plan Summary and Prospectus



2




EXHIBIT A




3




STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT

EXHIBIT B




PLAN SUMMARY AND PROSPECTUS





4
Second Department,

May, 2012

(May 1, 2012)

#### ACF Hillside, LLC, Respondent, v George Lambrakis, as Managing Member of Eagle Realty, LLC, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 900]—

*795In an action for specific performance of a contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agate, J.), entered September 17, 2010, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, ACF Hillside, LLC, acquired a “special member” interest in Eagle Realty, LLC (hereinafter Eagle), pursuant to Eagle’s amended operating agreement (hereinafter the amended agreement). The amended agreement gave the plaintiff the authority to take control of Eagle under certain circumstances, including, inter alia, a default on either of two notes executed in connection with loans made by Archer Capital Fund, L.R (hereinafter Archer), to Eagle. After Eagle’s managing member, George Lambrakis (hereinafter the defendant), failed to cede control of Eagle upon the plaintiffs invocation of the default clause, the plaintiff commenced this action against him to compel specific performance of the amended agreement. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the complaint, and the Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs motion. The defendant appeals, and we affirm.

The plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence as to its authority to take control of Eagle upon Eagle’s default on the notes, by virtue of Eagle’s failure to repay the loans, and its invocation of the default clause *(see Petra CRE CDO 2007-1, Ltd. v 160 Jamaica Owners, LLC,*73 AD3d 883, 884 [2010]; *Wells Fargo Bank v Das Karla,*71 AD3d 1006 [2010]; *Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, Inc. v Meltzer,*67 AD3d 872, 873 [2009]; *Quest Commercial, LLC v Rovner,*35 AD3d 576 [2006]). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Wells Fargo Bank v Das Karla,*71 AD3d 1006 [2010]). The defendant’s contention that the amended agreement was the product of fraud was supported only by conclusory allegations, and was, therefore, insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Eurycleia Partners, LP v Seward & Kissel, LLP,*12 NY3d 553, 559-560 [2009]; *Petra CRE CDO 2007-1, Ltd. v 160 Jamaica Owners, LLC,*73 AD3d at 884; *Heffez v L & G Gen. Constr., Inc.,*56 AD3d 526, 527 [2008]; *Quest Commercial, LLC v Rovner,*35 AD3d at 577). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

The defendant’s contentions relating to an order of preclusion *796are not properly before this Court on this appeal *(see Corsello v Verizon N.Y., Inc.,*77 AD3d 344, 369 [2010], *mod on other grounds*18 NY3d 877 [2012]; *Sirius Am. Ins. Co. v Vigo Constr. Corp.,*48 AD3d 450, 451-452 [2008]). Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 32222(U).]
Exhibit 32.3

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 Quarterly Report of Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company 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 the best of my knowledge:



| | (i) | 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 for the periods
presented herein.
| | ---- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Sam KraynekChief Financial OfficerMay 14, 2010
The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of 1

Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2799

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the 

Isaac Rivera, also known as Ramon * District of Minnesota.

Ruiz, also known as Ramon Ruiz *

Corrales, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: October 23, 1997

 Filed: October 30, 1997

___________

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In 1994, Isaac Rivera pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine with intent to

distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (1994), and possessing a firearm in relation

to drug trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1994). The District Court1
-2-

sentenced Rivera to consecutive prison terms of 70 months on the drug count and 60

months on the firearm count. Upon Rivera&s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) motion, the

District Court vacated his firearm conviction in light of Bailey v. United States, 116 S.

Ct. 501, 506 (1995). The Court then resentenced Rivera on the drug count to 84

months imprisonment, after imposing a two-level enhancement for the possession of a

firearm. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) (1995) (providing for

two-level enhancement if firearm involved).

Rivera appeals, arguing that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to resentence

him on the unchallenged drug conviction, as the purpose and scope of section 2255 do

not authorize such an action, and that his challenge to the firearm conviction did not

bring the entire “sentencing package” before the court. Rivera&s arguments are

foreclosed by United States v. Harrison, 113 F.3d 135, 137-38 (8th Cir. 1997)

(concluding that § 2255 allows enhancement of unchallenged drug sentence for firearm

possession after vacating firearm conviction in light of Bailey), and therefore we affirm

the District Court&s judgment.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Kenneth M. Schlau, Jr., Appellant, v City of Buffalo et al., Defendants, and Frey Electric Construction Co., Inc., Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[946 NYS2d 772]

Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Diane Y. Devlin, J.), entered February 17, 2011 in a personal injury action. The order and judgment, among other things, granted the motion of defendant Frey Electric Construction Co., Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint and cross claims against it.

It is hereby ordered that the order and judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by denying the motion *1590of Frey Electric Construction Co., Inc. without prejudice and reinstating the amended complaint and cross claims against it and as modified the order and judgment is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff, an employee of a concessionaire at defendant HSBC Arena (Arena), commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he sustained after receiving an electrical shock from the handle of an electronically secured door at the Arena. We conclude that Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of defendant Frey Electric Construction Co., Inc. (Frey) seeking summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint and cross claims against it. Frey’s “motion is premature because discovery has not been completed, including depositions concerning the respective roles, if any, of the parties involved in the accident” *(Syracuse Univ. v Games 2002, LLC,*71 AD3d 1531, 1531-1532 [2010]). We therefore modify the order and judgment by denying Frey’s motion without prejudice and reinstating the amended complaint and cross claims against it *(see Coniber v Center Point Transfer Sta., Inc.,*82 AD3d 1629 [2011]; *Hobbs v Enprotech Corp.,*12 AD3d 1063, 1064 [2004]). Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.7


EQUITY HOLDERS AGREEMENT


This agreement ("Agreement") is by and between AMC International Holdings
Ltd, a BVI Corporation ("AMCH") and IPC Corporation Ltd, a Singapore corporation
("IPC").

Whereas, AMCH, and its parent company Asia Media Communications, Ltd., a Nevada
Corporation ("AMC"), and IPC have entered into an acquisition agreement (the
"Acquisition Agreement"), dated 31 December, 1996 whereby AMCH has acquired 100%
of the common stock of IPC (Corporation) Pty Ltd., an Australian corporation
("IPCA") from IPC, in return for US$20 million in Exchangeable Preferred Shares
of AMCH (the "Pref Shares").


Whereas, the Pref Shares are exchangeable into common shares of AMC, pursuant to
terms of the Acquisition Agreement and the Resolutions of the Board of AMCH
creating the Pref Shares;

Whereas, the parties wish to agree to certain terms and conditions and have thus
entered into this Agreement:

Now therefore, the parties agree as follows:

1.   IPC agrees never to exercise its right to exchange the Pref Shares into
     common shares of AMC so long as the terms of the Acquisition Agreement and
     this Agreement have not been breached;

2.   AMCH will redeem the Pref Shares from, and only from, the following funds
     as cash becomes available:

     a.   100% of any net cash realized from the sale or liquidation of any
          currently owned assets and from the existing ongoing business
          operations of IPCA (net of any liabilities);
     
     b.   90% of any net cash generated from new projects or business operations
          of IPCA which have been introduced to IPCA by IPC or its directors or
          officers;

     c.   80% of any net cash generated from new projects or business operations
          of IPCA which have been introduced to IPCA by AMCH or others.

3.   The parties agree that any new business entered into by IPCA, or
     contributed to IPCA by either AMCH or AMC, will be identified to IPC in
     writing (prior to its initiation) as in to which category of Paragraph 2
     it will fall.

4.   Any new business to be introduced or contributed to IPCA by IPC will be
     identified and agreed to between IPC and AMCH in writing (prior to
     consummation of any transaction) as in to which category of Paragraph 2
     it will fall.

This Agreement may be signed in counterpart by the parties hereto.

This Agreement is entered into this 1st day of April, 1997.


AMC International Holdings Ltd.               IPC Corporation Ltd.



________________________________           ___________________________  
       Edward J. Tobin                              Patrick Ngiam





<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 10 (ddd)


                                                                             461
<PAGE>

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

$14,000
November 30, 1998
Montreal, Quebec

      FOR VALUE RECEIVED, The Tirex Corporation, 740 St. Maurice, Montreal,
Quebec, H3C 1L5 (the "Maker"), promises to pay, on demand, to the order of
Terence C. Byrne, 489 Grosvner Street, Westmount, Quebec, H3Y 2S5 (the "Payee"),
the principal sum of fourteen thousand United States dollars (US $14,000) at the
offices of the Payee, together with interest on the unpaid principal balance at
the annual rate of 2% over the Prime Rate charged by Citibank, NA as at such
date, unless prepaid at the Maker's election.

      Payment of all sums hereunder shall be made in lawful money of the United
States of America, or the equivalent amount exchangeable for Canadian dollars,
which payment shall be applied first to payment of accrued interest and then to
the reduction of the unpaid principal balance hereunder. A certificate from the
Payee of this Note shall be prima facie proof of the principal balance due
hereunder.

      Upon default, the whole sum of principal and interest shall become due
immediately at the option of the holder. Default shall include, but not be
limited to, the failure of the Maker to pay the interest or principal when due.
Failure at any time to exercise any of the rights and remedies of the Payee
hereunder shall not constitute a waiver thereof, nor shall it be a bar to
Payee's exercising any other rights and remedies at that time, or at a later
time.

      If any one or more of the provisions of this Note shall, for any reason,
be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, in whole or in part, or in any
respect, or if any one or more of the provisions of this Note would operate to
invalidate this Note, then, in any such event, such provision or provisions
shall only be deemed null and void and shall not affect any other provision of
this Note, and the remaining provisions of this Note shall remain operative and
in full force and effect, and in no way shall be affected, prejudiced or
disturbed thereby. This Note shall be construed under the laws of the State of
Delaware.

                                             The Tirex Corporation

                                             By /s/ Terence C. Byrne
                                                --------------------------------
                                                    Terence C. Byrne, President


                                                                             462
Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC17-1547

____________

STEVEN EDWARD STEIN, 

Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee.

[January 31, 2018]

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Steven Edward Stein’s appeal of the circuit court’s 

order denying Stein’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 

3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. 

Stein’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s 

decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on remand in 

Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2161 

(2017). This Court stayed Stein’s appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. 

State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017). After this 
- 2 -

Court decided Hitchcock, Stein responded to this Court’s order to show cause 

arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Stein’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the 

State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Stein is not entitled to relief. A jury 

convicted Stein of two counts of first-degree murder and recommended a sentence 

of death for both murders by a vote of ten to two. Stein v. State, 632 So. 2d 1361, 

1364 (Fla. 1994). Stein’s sentences of death became final in 1994. Stein v. 

Florida, 513 U.S. 834 (1994). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Stein’s 

sentences of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the 

denial of Stein’s motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Stein, we 

caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so 

ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.

LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result.

PARIENTE, J., concurring in result.

I concur in result because I recognize that this Court’s opinion in Hitchcock 

v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), is now 

final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting 

opinion in Hitchcock.
- 3 -

An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Duval County, 

Linda McCallum, Judge - Case No. 161991CF001505AXXXMA

Linda McDermott of McClain & McDermott, P.A., Estero, Florida,

for Appellant

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Charmaine M. Millsaps, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, 

for Appellee
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           6,200
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   71,488
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     11,657
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,713
<PP&E>                                          18,820
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,430
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 110,736
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          (9,611)
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           113
<OTHER-SE>                                      77,763
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 (110,736)
<SALES>                                       (27,484)
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              (34,827)
<CGS>                                            3,215
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,988
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 7,918
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,380
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,459)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,501
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,958)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,958)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .73
        

</TABLE>