alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AMB Property Corporation®
  
 Re:
    
    Continuing Employment; Change in Control and Noncompetition Agreement
  Merger Agreement CIC Agreement
   Merger Agreement provided however Change in Control Date




---



##### 



®
   Accelerated Vesting of Options and Other Equity-Based Awards




---



##### 



AMB Property Corporation®
  Very truly yours,
By:   AMB PROPERTY, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership,
By:   AMB Property Corporation, its general partnerBy:
    /s/ Nancy J. HemmenwayNancy J. HemmenwaySenior Vice President, Human Resources 
 /s/ Thomas S. Olinger
IB 

House Calendar No. 17 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 813 

[Report No. 111–27] 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 

at 306 East Main Street in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, as the 

‘‘J. Herbert W. Small Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 3, 2009 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD (for himself, Mr. SHULER, Ms. FOXX, Mr. ETHERIDGE, 

Mr. KISSELL, Mr. JONES, Mr. WATT, Mr. MILLER of North Carolina, 

Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. COBLE, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, 

and Mr. MCINTYRE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

MARCH 10, 2009 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 306 East Main Street in Elizabeth 

City, North Carolina, as the ‘‘J. Herbert W. Small Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

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


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HR 813 RH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The Federal building and United States courthouse 

3 located at 306 East Main Street in Elizabeth City, North 

4 Carolina, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘J. Her5 bert W. Small Federal Building and United States Court6 house’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

10 building and United States courthouse referred to in sec11 tion 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘J. Herbert 

12 W. Small Federal Building and United States Court13 house’’. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 17 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 813 

[Report No. 111–27] 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building and United 

United States Courthouse’’. ‘‘J. Herbert W. Small Federal Building and Street in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, as the States courthouse located at 306 East Main 

MARCH 10, 2009 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6823** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. TIMOTHY MAURICE BLANTON , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence
. Terry L. Wooten , Chief District Judge. ( 4:11

- cr - 02161

- TLW

- 3 )

Submitted : September 25, 2014 Decided: September 30, 2014

Before WILKINSON and AGEE , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Timothy Maurice Blanton, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in thi s circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Timothy Maurice Blanton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his self

- styled Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3) motion. Because Blanton’s motion was a successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion , see 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(h); In re Vial , 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 (4th Cir. 1997) , the district court was obligated to dismiss the motion, s ee United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 205 (4th Cir. 2003) , and t he order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2012) ; Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial s howing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessme nt of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both th at the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85.3 We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Blanton has not made the requ isite showing. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appea l. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the d ecisional process.

DISMISSED
Case 1:07-cv-01698-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-01698-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-01698-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-01698-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-01698-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 5 of 5
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 733 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 733

        For the relief of Jayantibhai Desai and Indiraben Patel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 2009

 Mrs. Napolitano introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        For the relief of Jayantibhai Desai and Indiraben Patel.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR JAYANTIBHAI DESAI AND 
              INDIRABEN PATEL.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Jayantibhai Desai and 
Indiraben Patel shall each be eligible for issuance of an immigrant 
visa or for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted 
for permanent residence upon filing an application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of 
status to lawful permanent resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Jayantibhai Desai or Indiraben Patel 
enters the United States before the filing deadline specified in 
subsection (c), he or she shall be considered to have entered and 
remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for 
adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Jayantibhai Desai and 
Indiraben Patel, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper 
officer to reduce by 2, during the current or next following fiscal 
year, the total number of immigrant visas that are made available to 
natives of each of the countries of the alien's birth under section 
203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the 
total number of immigrant visas that are made available to natives of 
each of the countries of the alien's birth under section 202(e) of such 
Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Jayantibhai 
Desai and Indiraben Patel shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be 
accorded any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and 
Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ROBERT CROYSDILL,

 Appellant,

v.

OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-21-00191-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 6

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2013DCV1136)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellee’s third motion for extension of time within which to file 

the brief until November 1, 2022. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE THE APPELLEE’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT. 

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Shelly W. Rivas, the Appellee’s attorney, prepare the 

Appellee’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before November 1, 2022.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of October, 2022.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
Case 1:07-cv-04510-AKH     Document 44      Filed 04/04/2008     Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-04510-AKH     Document 44      Filed 04/04/2008     Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-04510-AKH     Document 44      Filed 04/04/2008     Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05779-RJH Document 4 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-05779-RJH Document 4 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 99



March 21, 2002

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549-0408

Ladies and Gentlemen:

This letter is written pursuant to Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation
S-X.

Connecticut Water Service, Inc. has received a representation letter from Arthur
Andersen LLP ("Andersen") stating that the audit of the consolidated balance
sheets of Connecticut Water Service, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31,
2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated statements of income and cash flows
for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2001, was subject
to Andersen's quality control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing
practice to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in
compliance with professional standards, that there was appropriate continuity of
Andersen personnel working on the audit, and availability of national office
consultation. Availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Arthur Andersen
was not relevant to this audit.

Very truly yours,

/s/    DAVID C. BENOIT
       ---------------

David C. Benoit
Vice President - Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
Connecticut Water Service, Inc.
EXHIBIT 32
 Certification Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
   (1)
    
    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 Company.
 Dated: November 10, 2008
    
    By:  /s/ Philippe TartavullPhilippe TartavullChief Executive Officer and PresidentDated: November 10, 2008
    
    By:  /s/ Robert M. VreelandRobert M. VreelandInterim Chief Financial Officer 38
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MAXXIS GROUP, INC. FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH UNAUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      11,138,000
<SECURITIES>                                    10,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,437,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   897,000
<INVENTORY>                                    175,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,586,000
<PP&E>                                       5,263,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 725,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,474,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,375,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  5,200,000
<COMMON>                                       612,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     629,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,474,000
<SALES>                                     18,936,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,936,000
<CGS>                                        6,282,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,282,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,665,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             447,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,463,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,463,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,463,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.52


</TABLE>
# C_2009296EN.01001701.xml

| 5.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/17

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 18 September 2009 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/C.39129 — Power Transformers (1)

Rapporteur: Luxembourg

2009/C 296/05

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission assessment of the facts as an agreement and/or concerted practice within the meaning of Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission assessment of the facts as an agreement and/or concerted practice within the meaning of Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission that the agreement and/or concerted practices have as object a restriction of competition. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission that the agreement and/or concerted practices have as object a restriction of competition.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission that the agreement and/or concerted practices were implemented by the parties. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission that the agreement and/or concerted practices were implemented by the parties.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission assessment on the duration of the infringement for each addressee. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission assessment on the duration of the infringement for each addressee.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission draft decision as regards the conclusion that the agreement and concerted practices between the addressees were capable of having an appreciable effect upon trade between EU Member States and between contracting parties of the EEA. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission draft decision as regards the conclusion that the agreement and concerted practices between the addressees were capable of having an appreciable effect upon trade between EU Member States and between contracting parties of the EEA.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission draft decision as regards the addressees of the decision, specifically with reference to imputation of liability to parent companies of the groups concerned. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission draft decision as regards the addressees of the decision, specifically with reference to imputation of liability to parent companies of the groups concerned.

| 7. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

---
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
In connection with the Quarterly Report of Gondwana Energy Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Cameron Fink, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)    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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 16th day of May, 2005.

BY:
/s/ Cameron Fink                        Cameron Fink, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer**
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jerome Baron, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), rendered May 30, 1985, convicting him of burglary in the *834first degree, attempted robbery in the second degree (two counts), assault in the second degree, burglary in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, and grand larceny in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s various motions for a mistrial were properly denied. The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the discretion of the trial court *(see, People v Ortiz,*54 NY2d 288, 292), since it is within the court’s purview to determine whether an error "is prejudicial to the defendant and deprives him of a fair trial” (CPL 280.10 [1]). None of the alleged errors raised on appeal, either separately or cumulatively, created such prejudice as would mandate the grant of a mistrial. Neither a witness’s reference to the prior suppression hearing nor the exclusion of a witness’s name from the list of witnesses read to the jury generated the type of prejudice contemplated by CPL 280.10. Furthermore, although the prosecutor acted improperly in attempting to elicit from the defense witness testimony regarding the defendant’s prior bad acts, the only time he successfully did so the court’s prompt curative instruction alleviated any prejudice that might have arisen *(see, People v Onofrietti,*109 AD2d 896, 897).

The inadvertent observation by an alternate juror of the defendant being escorted by court officers cannot have created any prejudice under the circumstances, in light of the court’s inquiry of that individual and subsequent instructions to him. Additionally, the admission into evidence of a photograph of the defendant’s brother was entirely proper once the defendant raised the defense of mistaken identity through testimony that the defendant’s brother, rather than the defendant, was the perpetrator. In fact, we note that it was the defendant himself who placed the photograph into evidence.

The defendant was not entitled to a jury charge of burglary in the second degree as a lesser included offense of burglary in the first degree. Although it is theoretically impossible to commit the greater offense without concomitantly committing the lesser, in this case, no reasonable view of the evidence supports a finding that the defendant committed the lesser crime but not the greater *(see, People v Glover,*57 NY2d 61); there simply was no evidence from which it could be concluded that he burglarized the home of Blanche Daniell but did not physically injure her.

The court’s *Wade*and *Sandoval*rulings were in all respects proper. Finally, the issue the defendant now raises regarding *835the remission of his forfeited bail is not properly raised on the appeal from his judgment of conviction, as the matter is civil in nature *(see, People v Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co.,*37 NY2d 606, 610) and is not brought up for review by his notice of appeal from the criminal conviction. Lawrence, J. P., Weinstein, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.20A
 
                                FIRST AMENDMENT
                               TO LOAN AGREEMENT

This Amendment Agreement to Loan Agreement (this "Agreement") dated this 5th day
of February, 1997, by and between Image Entertainment, Inc. a California
Corporation ("Borrower") and Union Bank of California, N.A. ("Bank").

Whereas, Borrower and Bank have previously entered into that certain Loan
Agreement, dated December 17, 1996, ("The Loan Agreement"), pursuant to which
Bank has agreed to make certain loans and advances to Borrower;

Whereas, Borrower has requested that Bank agree to amend certain provisions
contained in the Loan Agreement; and

Whereas, Borrower and Bank have agreed and intend to hereby amend the Loan
Agreement.

Now, therefore, the parties hereby agree as follows:

     1.   Section 5.6 line eight (8) shall be changed from "greater than Ten
Million Dollars ($10,000,000)"; "greater than Two Million Five Hundred Thousand
Dollars ($2,500,000)".

     2.   Except as modified hereby, the Loan Agreement shall remain otherwise
unchanged and in full force and effect and this agreement shall be effective
from the date hereof and shall have no retroactive effect whatsoever.

In Witness Whereof, Borrower has executed and delivered this agreement.

"Borrower"
Image Entertainment, Inc.



By:  /s/ Jeff M. Framer
     ------------------
     Jeff Framer, Chief Financial Officer



Accepted and effected this ___ day of February, 1997, at Bank's place of
business in the City of Los Angeles, State of California.

"Bank"
Union Bank of California, N.A.


By:  /s/ Ronald L. Watterworth
     -------------------------
     Ronald L. Watterworth, Vice President

                                       1