alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Supplemntal Letter to Contract,dated July 14, 2004


 Exhibit 10.3 
  
 SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER 
  
 Reference is made to the contract dated as of July 14, 2004 between Tommy Hilfiger 485 Fifth, Inc. and Park & 5th Property LLC, as amended by amendments dated August 5, 2004 and May 10, 2005, which contract was assigned to
Park & 5th Owner LLC (the “Contract”). 
  
 The following will serve to amend and/or supplement the terms of the Contract
as follows: 
  
 1. As soon as practicable, the parties will
calculate and adjust for the cost of all permits, certificates and like items that have not been adjusted for as of the closing. 
  
 2. The Purchaser has acknowledged in the Contract that there may be a commission owed to CB Richard Ellis if 485 Camera & Electronics Inc./On Off
Digital World, Inc. elects to extend its lease and exercise its renewal option in accordance with its lease. Accordingly, Purchaser agrees to pay such commission, if any, in the amount set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto to the extent such
document is applicable to the said lease. 
  
 3. Violations
occurring prior to date of closing (except for the violations hereto as Exhibit B which Purchaser agrees to take subject to and which shall be dealt with as provided in Section 7 hereof) shall remain the obligation of Seller, but in no event
shall such obligation exceed the amount of the limitation set forth in the Contract. 
  
 4. Seller agrees to assume Purchaser’s reasonable cost of requiring Fifth Avenue Generation (“Tenant”) to remedy the violation attached hereto as Exhibit C (the “Violation”) if legal action
becomes reasonably necessary for Purchaser to do so. Payment of any such costs to be reimbursed to Purchaser monthly by Seller upon receipt by Seller of reasonable documentation confirming the cost of same. In no event shall Seller’s
obligations with respect to the cost of requiring Tenant to cause it to remedy the violation exceed $25,000. 
  
 5. Seller and Purchaser hereby agree to substitute the document attached hereto as Exhibit D as the first page of Schedule C to the Contract. 

 
 6. To the extent any document has been dated May 16, 2005, it shall
be deemed to be dated May 17, 2005. 








 7. In order to induce Purchaser to take subject to the violations referred to in the Exhibit B Seller
warrants and represents the following, which warranties and representation shall survive the closing: 
  
 The Seller shall, at its sole cost and expense, continue to process the removal of said violations and take all commercially reasonable action necessary
to do so. 
  
 Dated: May 17, 2005

     New York, New York 
  

			
	 TOMMY HlLFIGER 485 FIFTH, INC.

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Steven R. Gursky

	 	 	 Steven R. Gursky, Secretary

	
	 PARK & 5TH OWNER LLC

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Hymie Mamiye

	 Name:
	 	 Hymie Mamiye

	 Title:
	 	 Manager
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           7
<CIK>                         0000277269
<NAME>                        Farm Family Casualty Insurance Company
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           251,632
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          8,855
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                            9,194
<EQUITIES>                                     4,521
<MORTGAGE>                                     1,660
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 271,056
<CASH>                                         5,812
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             12,343
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         12,613
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 357,977
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                156,622
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            66,069
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 11,280
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                          120,174
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                1,268
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3,606
<OTHER-SE>                                     7,284
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   357,977
<PREMIUMS>                                     149,220
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            17,468
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             5,406
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 1,019
<BENEFITS>                                     103,301
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    40,410
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                29,018
<INCOME-TAX>                                   9,871
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            19,147
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   19,147
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 141,220
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            107,273
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                              (3,972)
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                             49,858
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                               40,258
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                156,622
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                        3,972



</TABLE>
Clear All

        14 March 2023    

                    Secretary of the Navy Visits Hampton Roads                 
                Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro visited the dock landing ship USS Carter Hall (LSD 50) at Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story, March 10, to recognize commands and Sailors who supported recovery of a high-altitude surveillance balloon.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge 1

for the Eastern District of Missouri.

___________

No. 95-3841

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Sylvester Bray, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: May 7, 1996

 Filed: May 15, 1996

___________

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Sylvester Bray pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a

firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The

district court sentenced him to 75 months imprisonment and two years

1

supervised release. He appeals, arguing only that his sentence was the

result of improper and unconstitutional "double-counting." We affirm.

We do not believe Bray sufficiently alerted the district court to the

issue he now raises. He made no objection to the pre-sentence report's

calculation of the guideline range, and in fact agreed that the report

correctly applied the Guidelines. He argued
-2-

at sentencing only that the Guidelines themselves were unconstitutional

because ". . . they are structured in a way that they could cause black

defendants to receive higher sentences than white defendants." (Sent. Tr.,

at 3.) His objection was overruled. See United States v. Williams, 994

F.2d 1287, 1294 (8th Cir. 1993) (to preserve issue for appeal, defendant

must timely object and clearly state grounds for objection so that trial

court has opportunity to prevent or correct error).

In any event, Bray's "double-counting" argument is without merit,

because the district court's consideration of his prior felony convictions

in computing both his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2) and

his criminal history category under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1 was proper and

constitutional. Cf. United States v. Saffeels, 39 F.3d 833, 836-37 (8th

Cir. 1994) (holding "triple-counting" permissible, where defendant's prior

felonies were used to convict him as felon-in-possession under § 922(g),

enhance his sentence under § 924(e)(1), and determine his criminal history

category under § 4A1.1); United States v. Thomas, 930 F.2d 12, 14 (8th Cir.

1991) (rejecting due process and double jeopardy challenges to § 4A1.1,

where defendant was convicted of escape and criminal history was increased

because defendant was under criminal sentence when he escaped).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUTHER G. JAMISON,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

GARY SWARTHOUT,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 08-17096

D.C. No. 3:07-CV-01782-PJH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 27, 2011** 

Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Luther G. Jamison appeals from the district court’s

judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. 

See Washington v. Lampert, 422 F.3d 864, 869 (9th Cir. 2005). 

FILED

SEP 30 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-17096

Jamison contends that the Board of Prison Terms’s 2004 decision finding

him unsuitable for parole violates California law and is not supported by some

evidence. Even assuming that his petition is timely, Jamison is not entitled to

relief. First, the record reflects that Jamison received all process that was due. See

Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 862-63 (2011) (per curiam). Second,

Jamison’s challenges to the application of California law are not cognizable in

federal habeas proceedings. See Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990)

(“[F]ederal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law[.]”); 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254(a).

We decline to consider Jamison’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim,

raised for the first time on appeal, because it relates to counsel’s performance

subsequent to the claims raised in the district court. 

Peter A. Furst’s motion to withdraw as Jamison’s counsel is granted. 

AFFIRMED.
&£-

SfD-Z-Jo/S

-to ft& aou fr nw murk \,)Ob(\p\ \V (VoSV Va ffu/rUse. i^y -frfi&l Wiy?SQftfik

"TV/, ffpson A^T>i/k, tattoo* is Vfoin^T\spjt he.cA W^ Vo&gMW-' nM^Wfii/lKftW, brtvi VdU/h m<j-Gyvalj \WJr ^ faa /io^f/A^s^

^tuio houJ AU(°k\xjou\(4 fhtes)-

Vo yu/fW>£ VW^a^ jherouse Lro/?> /iol cL

^Jg£

^c^_

RECEIVED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

SbP OS 2015

AbelAcoste,Clerk
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 36-2 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 36-2 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 36-2 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 36-2 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 4 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 45 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 1 of 5Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 45 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 2 of 5Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 45 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 3 of 5Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 45 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 4 of 5Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 45 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 5 of 5
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANUSH ALEKSANDRYAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-72970

Agency No. A097-603-481

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted February 11, 2013

San Francisco, California

Before: FARRIS, THOMAS, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

 Anush Aleksandryan, a native of Iran and citizen of Armenia, petitions for

review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA

affirmed the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of her applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

FILED

FEB 19 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
1

 Because Aleksandryan filed her application for asylum before May 2005,

the REAL ID Act does not apply. See REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13,

119 Stat. 231.

2

(CAT).1 The IJ rejected Aleksandryan’s claim of past persecution, concluding that

she was not credible. We “look to the IJ’s oral decision as a guide to what lay

behind the BIA’s conclusion,” when the BIA’s order lacks analysis with regard to

the IJ’s adverse credibility analysis. Avetova-Elisseva v. INS, 213 F.3d 1192, 1197

(9th Cir. 2000) (concluding that the BIA’s “simple statement of a conclusion . . .

suggests that the BIA gave significant weight to the IJ’s findings”). We have

jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence,

Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001), and deny the petition.

 While the IJ cited seven reasons supporting the adverse credibility finding,

only one is required to support the adverse credibility determination. See Wang v.

INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir. 2003). We find that two of the proffered

reasons are supported by specific, cogent reasons which go to the heart of

Aleksandryan’s asylum claim. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th

Cir. 2004). In particular, the IJ cited Aleksandryan’s inconsistent testimony

regarding her participation in the Armenian People’s Party and her second arrest. 

See Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1254 (9th Cir. 2003). Substantial

evidence supports these findings. The IJ confronted Aleksandryan on these two
3

perceived inconsistencies and properly rejected her explanations. Accordingly, the

record evidence does not compel a reasonable fact-finder to overturn the adverse

credibility determination. Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 966 (9th Cir. 1998).

In the absence of credible testimony, Aleksandryan’s asylum and

withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156

(9th Cir. 2003). Because Aleksandryan’s CAT claim is based, in part, on the same

testimony the BIA found incredible, and she points to no other arguments showing

it is more likely than not she will be tortured if returned to Armenia, her CAT

claim also fails. See id. at 1156-57. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Case 7:07-cv-05739-KMK Document 37 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 1 of 1
DOCSNY-266530v01 

Robert J. Higgins, Esq. (RH-6477) 

Judith R. Cohen, Esq. (JC-8614) 

Kenneth H. Frenchman, Esq. (KF-3635) 

DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 

1177 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, NY 10036-2714 

(212) 277-6500 

Attorneys for Defendant Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

21 MC 102 (AKH) 

 : 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

JULIA NARVAEZ, 

 Plaintiff, 

 - against - 

100 CHURCH, LLC, et al., 

 Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

07-CV-05304-AKH 

NOTICE OF ADOPTION 

OF ANSWER 

TO MASTER COMPLAINT 

BY MERRILL LYNCH 

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendant Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (“Merrill 

Lynch”), as and for its responses to the allegations set forth in the Complaint by Adoption 

(Check-Off Complaint) Related to the Master Complaint filed in the above-referenced action, 

hereby adopts Merrill Lynch’s Answer to Master Complaint, dated August 3, 2007, which was 

filed in the matter of In re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 

MC 102 (AKH). To the extent that the Check-Off Complaint in this action alleges a relationship 

between 100 Church Street and Merrill Lynch, Merrill Lynch avers that it never reoccupied the 

Case 1:07-cv-05304-AKH Document 12 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 1 of 2
2 

DOCSNY-266530v01 

building at this location after September 11, 2001 and that it terminated all lease arrangements 

covering this location effective May 8, 2003. 

WHEREFORE, Merrill Lynch demands judgment dismissing the above-captioned 

action as against it, together with its costs and disbursements and for such other and further relief 

as this Court deems just and proper. 

Dated: New York, New York 

 September 14, 2007 

 By:

DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 

/s/ Judith R. Cohen___________________ 

Robert J. Higgins (RH-6477) 

Judith R. Cohen (JC-8614) 

Kenneth H. Frenchman (KF-3635) 

1177 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, New York 10036 

Phone: (212) 277-6500 

Fax: (212) 277-6501 

Attorneys for Defendant 

MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. 

Case 1:07-cv-05304-AKH Document 12 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT32.1**

**Certification ofPrincipal Executive OfficersStatement Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as Required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of Optelecom, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies that to the best of ourknowledge: 

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) of 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| /s/ Edmund Ludwig   |   |   |
|---------------------|--------|--------|
| Edmund Ludwig       |
| March 29, 2004 |
| /s/ James Armstrong |   |   |
| James Armstrong     |
| March 29, 2004 |

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Optelecom, Inc.and will be retained by Optelecom, Inc. and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
EXHIBIT 10.52

May 20, 1988



Mr. John J. Bonasia
P.O. Box 262
Bellbrook, OH 45305

Dear John:

I am pleased to confirm your appointment to the position of Senior Vice
President of Sales for Airwork Corporation of UNC Incorporated.  Your annual
base salary will be $110,000 effective June 27, 1988.  You will also be paid
an annual perquisite of $2,500.

You are eligible to participate in the UNC Incorporated 30% base Incentive
Compensation Program (I.C.) if Company goals are met.  Under the same program
you may be eligible for a CEO discretionary I.C. award.  You will be
guaranteed a minimum incentive payment of $30,000 for the first year.

You will be granted 6,000 stock options upon approval of the UNC Incorporated
Board of Directors.

Employee and dependent health insurance, employee life insurance and LTD
coverage are available from date of hire under existing Company plans.  Also,
you will be eligible to participate in the 401 (K) Retirement Income Savings
Plan effective July 1, 1988.

You will be eligible for reasonable costs for relocation expenses in
accordance with the attached UNC Incorporated policy, except under Section
15.3, you will receive one month's base pay for miscellaneous costs of
moving.

You agree within 30 days after assuming your position, as part of this
Agreement, you will execute UNC's standard confidential and covenant not to
compete provision when presented to you by Company Counsel.

In the event your employment is terminated by UNC Incorporated, your base
salary and employee and dependent health insurance would continue to be paid
for an additional 12 months from date of termination.

To confirm your Agreement, please sign and return the enclosed copy of this
letter and Employee Relocation Agreement to me.

I look forward to an exciting and rewarding relationship in a promising
business venture.

Sincerely,



/s/ Bob Boyne

JSS
Enclosure



Accepted:  /s/ John J. Bonasia

Date:         6/3/88
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1638 

To amend title 32, United States Code, to authorize the transfer of equipment 

and facilities from the Federal Government or a State, Tribal, or local 

government to the National Guard for purposes of the National Guard 

Youth Challenge Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 8, 2019 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO (for herself, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. YOUNG, Mr. RUSH, Mr. 

KILMER, Mr. MULLIN, Mr. CARBAJAL, Mr. DEFAZIO, Ms. BROWNLEY of 

California, Ms. KAPTUR, Miss GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́N of Puerto Rico, Mr. 

BARR, Ms. NORTON, and Mr. LOWENTHAL) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 32, United States Code, to authorize the 

transfer of equipment and facilities from the Federal 

Government or a State, Tribal, or local government to 

the National Guard for purposes of the National Guard 

Youth Challenge Program. 

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 ‘‘Building Success for 

5 Youth ChalleNGe Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1638 IH

1 SEC. 2. NATIONAL GUARD YOUTH CHALLENGE PROGRAM: 

2 EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES. 

3 Section 509(h) of title 32, United States Code, is 

4 amended— 

5 (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as para6 graph (4); and 

7 (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the fol8 lowing new paragraphs: 

9 ‘‘(2) Equipment and facilities of the United States 

10 may be transferred to the National Guard for purposes 

11 of carrying out the Program. 

12 ‘‘(3) Equipment and facilities of a State, Tribal, 

13 county, or local government entity may be transferred to 

14 the National Guard for purposes of carrying out the Pro15 gram.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS