alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 10.28****THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT OF LEASE**     **AGREEMENT**made as of the 18th day of January, 2007, by and between **COMMERCE PARKREALTY, LLC,**a Connecticut limited liability company having an address at 7 Finance Drive, Danbury,Connecticut 06810 (“**Lessor**”) and **ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY MATERIALS, INC.**, a Delaware corporation havingan address at 7 Commerce Drive, Danbury, Connecticut 06810 (“**Lessee**”).**RECITALS**     A. Lessee has leased certain land and improvements known as 7 Commerce Drive, Danbury,Connecticut (the **“Leased Premises"**), pursuant to a lease dated December 23, 1994 between Melvyn J.Powers and Mary P. Powers, d/b/a M&M Realty, as original lessor, and Lessee, as lessee (the**“Original Lease"**), as amended by First Amendment To Agreement Of Lease between Lessor and Lesseedated as of November 22, 2000 (the **“First Amendment"**), as further amended by Second Amendment ToAgreement Of Lease between Lessor and Lessee dated as of March 24, 2003 (the **“Second Amendment"**;collectively with the Original Lease and the First Amendment referred to herein as the **“Lease**”).     B. Lessee has requested that Lessor agree to extend the initial term of the Lease foreighteen (18) months.     C. As a condition to granting its consent to Lessee’s request, Lessor requires that theLease be modified in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.     D. In consideration of the foregoing, and for One Dollar ($1.00) and other valuableconsideration received by each to their satisfaction, Lessor and Lessee hereby agree as follows:**AGREEMENT**     1. The initial term of the Lease is hereby extended for a period of eighteen (18)months, so that it ends on December 31, 2009. All references in the Lease to the “Term” shall meanthe period commencing on the Commencement Date and ending on December 31, 2009. The current annualFixed Rent of $485,702.76 shall be payable for the remainder of the Term, as extended hereby.     2. Due to the extension of the Term to December 31, 2009, the First Renewal Term shallcommence on January 1, 2010 and terminate on December 31, 2014, and the parties hereby agree thatthe Second Renewal Term shall commence on January 1, 2015 and extend for a period of sixty (60)months, so that it terminates on December 31, 2019.     3. Except as specifically modified hereby, all of the terms and conditions of the Leaseremain in full force and effect.
 

 
     4. All capitalized terms used, but not defined herein, shall have the definitionsattributed thereto in the Lease.     5. This Agreement shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, Lessor and Lesseeand their respective successors, heirs and assigns.     6. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State ofConnecticut.     7. This Agreement may not be changed or modified, in whole or in part, except by writteninstrument executed by the party against whom enforcement of such change or modification is sought.     **IN WITNESS WHEREOF,**Lessor and Lessee have executed this Agreement as of the day and datefirst above written.      LESSOR:
| 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. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   | By:                                                           | /s/ Xuelian Bian |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer,                                      |
|   |   | (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) |

----
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. William J. CRAWFORD, Appellant. William J. CRAWFORD, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 64379.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

Nov. 21, 1995.

Ellen H. Flottman, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., F. Martin Dajani, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SMITH, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and RHODES, JJ.

*MEMORANDUM DECISION*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from his judgment of conviction by a jury of one count each of first degree robbery and armed criminal action, and from the denial of his post-conviction Rule 29.15 motion. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The parties have been furnished with a statement of the reasons for the court’s decision. Judgment of conviction and denial of Rule 29.15 motion affirmed. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    to my knowledge, 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.
 /s/ HASSAN CHAHADEH

Hassan ChahadehChairman of the Board of Directors andChief Executive OfficerAugust 15, 2011/s/ MICHAEL L. GRIFFIN

Michael L. GriffinChief Financial OfficerAugust 15, 2011
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

STEVEN P. HILL, Sr., #223781,

Plaintiff, Case No. 08-cv-13852

v. Hon. George Caram Steeh

K. GREEN, et al., 

Defendants.

______________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO HALT PROCEEDINGS (#35) AND

ALLOWING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

On March 19, 2010, Plaintiff Steven P. Hill requested that this court “halt” this case.

Hill claims he did not receive timely notification of the magistrate’s August 4, 2009 report

and recommendation regarding the defendants’ initial motion for summary judgment (#25).

Thus, he was unable to raise objections to the report and recommendation. Absent

plaintiff’s objections, the court ruled on the report and recommendation and issued its

August 25, 2009 order accepting its findings (#27). Plaintiff now asks this court to stop the

proceedings in this case or, in the alternative, give plaintiff an opportunity to respond and

object to the August 4, 2004 report and recommendation.

The relief requested by plaintiff is extraordinary and has no basis in law. Notably,

plaintiff’s letter fails to allege any problems with the receipt of this court’s August 25, 2009

order. One must presume that he received the August 25, 2009 order. At that time, it

should have been clear to plaintiff that the order was based on the findings of the

magistrate’s report and recommendation. Plaintiff, however, failed to raise his current
2

concerns until February 9, 2010 and most recently, March 19, 2010 in his letter to this

court. Giving plaintiff the most generous benefit of the doubt, his request is untimely and

outside the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the rules of this court.. 

Nonetheless, if plaintiff claims that the court committed a palpable error in law or in

fact in its ruling, he may within ten days of receipt of this order, file a motion for

reconsideration, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); see also E.D. Mich. L.R. 59.1. The court

hereby DENIES plaintiff’s request to halt proceedings.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2010

S/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

April 19, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Josephine Chaffee

Deputy Clerk
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Gerald RIEFLE, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 63212.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 1, 1994.

Donald V. Nangle, Muegler & Niesen, Clayton, for defendant, appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Beal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff, respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction by the trial court for possession of a controlled substance, § 195.202 RSMo Supp.1992. He was sentenced as a persistent drug offender to ten years’ imprisonment. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SHARON ELAINE HILL,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No.

08-CV-14382

vs.

HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

COMMISSIONER OF

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

_____________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is presently before the court on the parties’ cross motions for summary

judgment [docket entries 11, 16]. Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub has submitted a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) in which she recommends that the court deny plaintiff’s motion and

grant defendant’s motion. Neither party has filed objections to the R&R.

Having reviewed the parties’ motions, the administrative record and the R&R, the

court is persuaded that the magistrate judge has correctly analyzed all of the issues and that her

recommendation is sound. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Majzoub’s R&R is hereby accepted and

adopted as the findings of the court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

2:08-cv-14382-BAF-MKM Doc # 18 Filed 10/23/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 529
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion for summary judgment is

granted.

S/Bernard A. Friedman 

Bernard A. Friedman

United States District Judge

Dated: October 23, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

October 23, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Carol Mullins 

Case Manager

2:08-cv-14382-BAF-MKM Doc # 18 Filed 10/23/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 530
F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Sep tember 1 6, 2008 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1100 3

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-00534 CR-T -26MSS UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us STEVEN L ORENZO, a.k .a, Dom Dud eFo rSub, a. k. a. Co nstrm an , a. k. a. T paA nto nio , a. k.a. Cobblesto neHom e, a. k. a. T m pa Bl ue s, a . k
. a . An th o n y, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (S ep te m be r 16, 200 8) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BA RKE T T and H IL L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

A ft er or al arg um en t and c ar ef

ul c onsi de ratio n, w e re ad ily c onc lud e that the ju d g m en to f t h e d i s tri ctco u rti s du e t o b e a ff i rmed , b o th as t o d ef

en d an t ’s convictio n and sentence. D efendant’ s interstate com m erce argum ent is foreclosed by pr ec ed en t; m or eo ve r, the e vid en ce ind ic at es that de fe ndant o bta ine d th e dr ugs via the internet and the United States m ail. Ther e w as am ple evidence to supp ort the j ury ’ s verdict of conviction on all counts
. The district court did not plain ly err in consid ering the hearsay testim ony

concerning Schwe ickert’ s statem ents at
se nte nc ing
. D ef

en dant’ s othe r ar gum en ts o n a ppe al are a lso whol ly

w ith out m er it,
an d a re re jecte d wi th ou t n eedforfur th er d is cu ss io n. AFFIR MED.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-11294

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL PAUL GIANFRANCESCO, 

a.k.a. Bwc694200,

a.k.a. M.H.,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

USCA11 Case: 23-11294 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 05/01/2024 Page: 1 of 2
2 Opinion of the Court 23-11294

D.C. Docket No. 9:22-cr-80127-DMM-5

____________________

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and BRASHER and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant 

to the appeal waiver in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED. 

See United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1350–53 (11th Cir. 1993) 

(sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly 

and voluntarily).

USCA11 Case: 23-11294 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 05/01/2024 Page: 2 of 2
#### Jerome L. PLEASANT, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 49865.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 28, 1995.

Ellen H. Flottman, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Mary Moulton Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before BRECKENRIDGE, P.J., and ELLIS and LAURA DENVIR STITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from denial of Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Opinion issued September 17, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 13
- 00402
- CV

——————————— JEFFREY A. BENSON, C LIFFORD M. BRAKE, JR ., ROBERT CRONIN, BRIAN L. ELLIOT, STE PHEN O’CONNOR, SIXMU ND PELEKAMOYO,

AND KIM ZAMORA , Appellant s

V. T H HILL ASSOCIATES, INC. , Appellee
On Appeal from the 152nd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2012
- 75246

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellants, Jeffrey A. Benson, Clifford M. Brake, Jr., Robert Cronin, Brian
L. Elliot, Stephen O’Connor, Sixmund Pelekamoyo, and Kim Zamora , have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. No other party has filed a notice of appeal, and no2

opinion has issued. Further, although appellants failed to include a certificate of conference i n their motion, more than 10 days have passed and no party has responded to the motion. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 10.1(a)(5), 10.3(a). Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.1(a)(1). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Massengale.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT MARY HELEN COAL CORPORATION, a Virginia Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. MARTY D. HUDSON; MICHAEL H. HOLLAND, Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund and Trustees of the 1992 United Mine Workers of America Benefit Plan; No. 97-2331 THOMAS O. S. RAND; ELLIOTT A. SEGAL; CARLTON R. SICKLES; GAIL R. WILENSKY; WILLIAM P. HOBGOOD, Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund; THOMAS F. CONNORS; ROBERT WALLACE, Trustees of the 1992 United Mine Workers of America Benefit Plan, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-71-3) Argued: January 27, 1998 Decided: September 24, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________Reversed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Patrick Michael McSweeney, MCSWEENEY, BURTCH & CRUMP, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Peter Buscemi, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: William B. Ellis, John L. Marshall, Jr., MCSWEENEY, BURTCH & CRUMP, P.C., Richmond, Virginia; Robert H. Bork, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. John Mills Barr, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, Washington, D.C.; David W. Allen, Office of the General Counsel, UMWA HEALTH & RETIREMENT FUNDS, Washington, D.C.; John R. Mooney, MOONEY, GREEN, BAKER, GIBSON & SAINDON, P.C., Washington, D.C.; Samuel M. Brock, III, MAYS & VALENTINE, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Mary Helen Coal Corporation ("Mary Helen") appeals a final order of the district court granting summary judgment to the appellees on Mary Helen's claim that the Coal Industry Retiree Benefit Act of 1992, 26 U.S.C. §§ 9701-9722, as applied to Mary Helen, violates the Due Process and Takings Clauses of the Fifth Amendment. Followingbriefing and oral argument, we ordered that the case be held in abeyance pending argument and decision by the Supreme Court in Eastern Enters. v. Apfel , 118 S. Ct. 2131 (1998). On June 25, 1998, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Eastern in which five Justices agreed that the Coal Act was unconstitutional as applied to Eastern Enterprises. Because the case at bar is materially indistinguishable from Eastern , we grant Mary Helen's motion for summary reversal
2pursuant to Fourth Circuit Rule 27(g), and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. Also outstanding are Mary Helen's motion to strike portions of the appellees' brief, which is hereby granted, and appellees' motion to supplement the record on appeal, which is denied.
REVERSED
3
exh10-3c.htm


    
      EXHIBIT
10.3(c)

      


      


      FIRST
AMENDMENT TO

      THE
CENTURYTEL, INC.

      SUPPLEMENTAL
DOLLAR & SENSE PLAN,

      2008
RESTATEMENT

      EFFECTIVE
JANUARY 1, 2008

    

     

    
       

       

      WHEREAS, Section 5.03 of this
Plan provides that if a Participant has made a deferral election under Section
5.01 but does not make a new election for the succeeding Plan Year, his
elections in effect for the current Plan Year continue in force and effect as if
made for the succeeding Plan Year; and

      


      WHEREAS, the Plan should
provide that unless a deferral election is made prior to the first day of each
Plan Year with respect to Excess Salary or on or before June 30 of a calendar
year performance period, with respect to Incentive Compensation, no deferral
will be permitted for such Plan Year.

      


      NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is
amended effective January 1, 2008 as follows:

      


                     
Delete Section 5.03 and insert the following in lieu thereof:

    

     

    
      5.03.  If a
Participant does not make new elections for a succeeding Plan Year under Section
5.01, he will not be able to defer any Excess Salary or Incentive Compensation
for such succeeding Plan Year.

      


                     
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CenturyTel, Inc. has executed this Amendment on the
20th
day of November, 2008.

    

     

     

     

    
      	
               

               
      

            	
              CENTURYTEL,
      INC.

            
	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
              By:/s/  R.
      Stewart Ewing, Jr.         
      

            
	 
      	
                   R.
      Stewart Ewing, Jr.

            
	 
      	
                   Executive
      Vice President and

            
	 
      	
                   Chief
      Financial Officer
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### May 7, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 135421 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### RUTH SEMON, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 135421 COA: 274777 Macomb CC: 05-004148-NO CITY OF SAINT CLAIR SHORES, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e October 30, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p0430 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 7, 2008

Clerk
Exhibit 32.01    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 School4Chauffeurs, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Grant Jasmin, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (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 result of operations of the Company.      /s/ Grant Jasmin By: Grant Jasmin Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  Dated: May 17, 2010  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATE 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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-Q of Siga Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the nine months ended April 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Arun Kumar, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, 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 and belief:





1. The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2. The information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.








Date:








ARUN KUMAR


Arun Kumar


Chief Executive Officer,


President and Director











-1-