alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.44


               [North Atlantic Trading Company, Inc. - Letterhead]



VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS

September 20, 2002

Mr. Jack Africk
Evolution Partners LLC
1200 N. Federal Highway, Suite 211
Boca Raton, FL 33431

Dear Jack:


We are pleased that you are willing to continue as a consultant to North
Atlantic Trading Company, Inc. As I have often said, we greatly value your
expertise and wisdom.

As discussed, the prior terms of your Consulting Agreement shall remain
unchanged except that the term shall be extended to December 31, 2003. Those
terms will include your annual compensation of $100,000.00, Claudia M. Bayarri
on the National Tobacco payroll at a salary of $26,536.22 plus applicable
benefits, and a cellular phone for your use.

If this letter accurately reflects our understanding, kindly so indicate by
signing one of the enclosed duplicate originals and returning it to my
attention,


Sincerely,


/s/ Thomas F. Helms, Jr.
-------------------------------


/s/ Jack Africk                                     9/26/02
-------------------------------                     -----------
                                                    Date
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Independent Auditor’s Consent**

 

As independent auditors, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report, dated February 18, 2003, which includes an emphasis paragraph relating touncertainty as to the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern, relating to the financial statements of Commonwealth Biotechnologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2002, included in the 2002 Annual Report to Shareholders andincorporated by reference into the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB, into the Company’s previously filed Form S-8 Registration Statement, File No. 333-51074, and Form S-3 Registration Statement No. 333-51078. 

 

/s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP 

 

Richmond, Virginia 

March 30, 2004
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TOMMY HALL,

Plaintiff, Case Number 09-10933

Honorable David M. Lawson

v. Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon

RAWAL,

Defendant.

___________________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

Presently before the Court is a report issued on July 31, 2012 by Magistrate Judge Mark A.

Randon pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) recommending that this Court dismiss the plaintiff’s

complaint with respect to defendant Rawal, the only defendant remaining in the case. Although the

magistrate judge’s reports explicitly stated that the parties to this action may object to and seek

review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of the report, no objections have been

filed thus far. The parties’ failure to file objections to the reports and recommendations waives any

further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir.

1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the magistrate judge’s reports releases the Court from its

duty to independently review the matter. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, the

Court agrees with the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [dkt.

#161] is ADOPTED.

2:09-cv-10933-DML-MAR Doc # 162 Filed 09/18/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 2388
-2-

It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s claims against defendant Rawal are

DISMISSED.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: September 18, 2012

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on September 18, 2012.

s/Deborah R. Tofil 

DEBORAH R. TOFIL

2:09-cv-10933-DML-MAR Doc # 162 Filed 09/18/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 2389
EXHIBIT 10.36


                      NORTH ATLANTIC TRADING COMPANY, INC.
                           1999 MANAGEMENT BONUS PLAN

The 1999 Management Bonus Plan (the "Management Plan") is based on (1) the
Company achieving its budgeted EBITDA, determined on a consolidated basis in
accordance with the Company's 1999 budget, and (2) each participant's individual
performance level during 1999. The participants in the Management Plan are Steve
Dickman, Jim Hinely, Chris Kounnas, Jay Martin, Ray Orlandi, Cliff Ray and John
Todd.

 In the event the Company's EBITDA for 1999 equals or exceeds budgeted EBITDA,
each participant in the Management Plan shall be eligible to be considered for a
bonus in an amount up to twenty-five percent (25%) of such participant's base
salary, with the amount of each bonus being based on such participant's level of
performance for 1999. Each participant's level of performance shall be evaluated
based on performance criteria established between such participant and his
supervisor.

In the event the Company's EBITDA for 1999 is less than budgeted EBITDA, the
Executive Committee, acting with the advice of the Compensation Committee, shall
have the right to make discretionary bonus payments to one or more of the
participants in the Management Plan.

Participants in the Management Plan shall not have the right to participate in
any other bonus plan established by the Company for the 1999 fiscal year.





NY2:\893961\02\J5S902!.DOC\64980.0003
Case 2:08-cr-20555-SJM-VMM ECF No. 3, PageID.7 Filed 03/25/08 Page 1 of 1
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: D. Patrick Smitherman v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

Appellate case number: 01-13-00635-CV

Trial court case number: 2010-10256

Trial court: 129th District Court of Harris County

It is ordered that Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing is denied.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

 Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Massengale, Brown, and Huddle

Date: March 31, 2015
### NUMBER 13 - 14 - 00724 - CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
Michael Phillips , Appellant ,
v.

The State of Texas , Appellee.

On appeal from the 319th District Court of Nueces County , Texas. 

## O R D E R
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez, and Garza Order Per Curia m
Appellant, Michael Phillips, has filed a notice of appeal with this Court from his
conviction in trial court cause number 14

- CR2619

- G . The trial court’s certification of the defendant’s rig ht to appeal shows that the defendant does not have the right to appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2). The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that a defendant has a right of appeal is not made a part of the record. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d); see T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4.2

Within thirty days of receipt of this notice, appellant’s lead appellate counsel,
Donald Edwards , is hereby ORDERED to: 1) re view the record; 2) determine wheth er appellant has a right to appeal; and 3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings as to whether appellant has a right to appeal and/or advise this Court as to the existence of any amended certification. If appellant’s counsel determines that appellant has a right to appeal, counsel is further ORDERED to file a motion with this Court within thirty days of receipt of this notice, identifying and explaining substantive reasons why appellant has a right to appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 44.3, 44.4; see also, e.g., Carroll v. State, No. 04

- 03

- 00473

- CR, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 7317 (San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (designated for publication) (certification form provided in appendix to appellate rules may be modified to reflect that defendant has right of app eal under circumstances not addressed by the form). The motion must include an analysis of the applicable case law, and any factual allegations therein must be true and supported by the record. Cf. Woods v. State, 108 S.W.3d 314, 316 (Tex. Crim. App. 200 3) (construing former appellate rule 25.2(b)(3) and holding that recitations in the notice of appeal must be true and supported by the record). Copies of record documents necessary to evaluate the alleged error in the certification affecting appellant’s r ight to appeal shall be attached to the motion. See
T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.1, 10.2. PER CURIAM Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2( b). Delivered and filed the 18th day of December 2014

.
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We have issued our reports dated March 3, 2006, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and schedules, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the financial statements of Dearborn Center, L.L.C. included in the Annual Report of Prime Group Realty Trust on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statement of Prime Group Realty Trust on Form S-8 (File No. 33-67940).

 

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

 

Chicago, Illinois

March 13, 2006
The Hon orable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Easter n 1 District of Missouri.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2292

___________ Willie Lee Kent, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Ken Korpecki, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: July 7, 1998 Filed: July 27, 1998

___________ Before McMILLIAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Willie Lee Kent, a Missouri prisoner, appeals from the district court & s grant of 1 summ ary judgment to Ken Korpecki in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming tha t Korpecki failed to protect him from being assaulted by two other inmates, and from its order denying Kent & s motion for reconsideration.-2-

After our de novo review, see Madewell v. Downs , 68 F.3d 1030, 1036 (8th Cir. 1995), we conclude that the district court & s grant of summary judgment for Korpecki was appropriate, because the record does not evidence that Korpecki had sufficien t knowledge of the likelihood that Kent would be assaulted to render him liable fo r damages under section 1983. See8th Cir. R. 47B. Wealso conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kent & s motion for reconsideration. See Perkins v. US W. Communications , 138 F.3d 336, 340 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard of review for Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion); Sanders v. Clemco Indus. , 862 F.2d 161, 169 & n.1 4 (8th Cir. 1988) (standard of review for Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion; Rule 60(b ) provides for extraordinary relief which may be granted only upon adequate showing of exceptional circumstances). We deny Kent & s motion to enlarge the record on appeal and affirm the judgment. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
| (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Richard McKilligan                                                       |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Richard      McKilligan                                                      |
| Chief      Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting    Officer) |
| February      12,2010                                                        |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 365 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 365

   To apply the antitrust laws of the United States to major league 
                               baseball.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

 Mr. Schumer introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To apply the antitrust laws of the United States to major league 
                               baseball.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Baseball Fans and Communities 
Protection Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS TO MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL IN 
              EXCEPTIONAL AND EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES.

    The Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 
end the following:
    ``Sec. 27. (a) If unilateral terms and conditions of employment in 
restraint of trade or commerce are imposed by any party that has been 
subject to an agreement between 2 or more major league baseball clubs 
and the labor organization representing the players of major league 
baseball, such unilateral imposition shall be subject to the antitrust 
laws.
    ``(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to a term or condition imposed 
solely with respect to a professional baseball player who is a party to 
a uniform player contract that is assigned, at the time the imposition 
described in such subsection occurs, to a baseball club that is not a 
major league professional baseball club.
    ``(c) This section shall not be construed to modify, impair, or 
supersede the operation of--
            ``(1) the Act of September 30, 1961 (Public Law 87-331; 15 
        U.S.C. 1291 et seq.), or
            ``(2) any Federal statute relating to labor relations.
    ``(d) For purposes of this section, the term `terms and conditions' 
does not include a strike or a lockout.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Christopher B. WROTEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 50551.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Dec. 5, 1995.

James C. Cox, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

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

Before FENNER, C.J., P.J., and ULRICH and SMITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from denial of Rule 24.085 motion for post-conviction relief without an eviden-tiary hearing.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALAN COLE, VINCENT COLE, 

and JORDAN COLE, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. Case No. 09-10941 

 Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

CITY OF DEARBORN, EDWARD 

VILLEMAIRE, RICHARD MICHALSKI, 

SGT. CONRAD and OTHER UNKNOWN 

DEFENDANTS, 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/ 

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ unopposed Motion to Dismiss pro se

Plaintiff Vincent Cole (“VC”) [dkt 65]. On November 24, 2009, VC’s deposition was properly 

noticed for January 28, 2010. VC failed to appear for the scheduled deposition. Rule 37 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure discusses failures of a party to cooperate in discovery, and 

sanctions available to the parties aggrieved by such failures. Rule 37(d)(1)(A) states in pertinent 

part: 

The Court where the action is pending may, on motion, order sanctions if: (i) a 

party . . . fails, after being served with proper notice, to appear for that person’s 

deposition . . . . Sanctions may include any of the orders listed in Rule 

37(b)(2)(A). 

Rule 37(b)(2)(A) provides that “dismissing an action or proceeding in whole or in part” is 

one of the sanctions the Court may impose for failure of a party to appear at its own deposition. 

In the instant case, dismissal of the action is a proper sanction to be imposed upon Plaintiff. 

2:09-cv-10941-LPZ-DAS Doc # 68 Filed 02/29/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 728
2

Further, the Sixth Circuit has recognized the right to grant dismissal under Rule 37(d) 

based on the failure of a party to appear at its own deposition. In McCoy v. Jackson Police 

Department, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4949 (E.D. Mich., January 23, 2009), the Court dismissed 

the pro se plaintiff’s claims due to his failure to appear at deposition. 

Additionally, on February 10, 2012, the Court issued an Order for VC to show cause why 

he should not be dismissed for failure to appear for deposition. VC’s response to the Order to 

Show Cause was due February 20, 2012. As of the time of this Order, VC has failed to file a 

response. 

Due to VC’s failure to attend his deposition and continued failure to abide by the Court’s 

Orders, Defendants have been deprived of their opportunity to depose VC, and thus are 

substantially prejudiced in defending themselves against his claims. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Vincent Cole is dismissed from 

this case with prejudice. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: February 29, 2012 

 s/Lawrence P. Zatkoff

Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

U.S. District Judge 

2:09-cv-10941-LPZ-DAS Doc # 68 Filed 02/29/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 729
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 22-8 Filed 12/18/09 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 22-8 Filed 12/18/09 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 22-8 Filed 12/18/09 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 22-8 Filed 12/18/09 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 22-8 Filed 12/18/09 Page 5 of 5
Exhibit 10.2 


 


ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTIONOF AGREEMENT
FOR SALE AND PURCHASE AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS


 


This ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION
OF AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS (this “Assignment”) is made and entered into this
8 day of April, 2014 by Inland Real Estate Acquisitions Inc., an Illinois Corporation, (“Assignor”), and IREIT Mansfield
Pointe, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company (“Assignee”).


 


RECITALS


 


A.Mansfield SEQ 287
& Debbie LTD. A Texas limited partnership (“Seller”) and Assignor have previously entered into that certain Purchase
and Sale Agreement dated as of February 18, 2014, as amended, (the “Purchase Agreement”), relating to the sale of a
certain shopping center commonly known as Mansfield Pointe Shopping Center located at the Northwest Corner of U.S. Highway 287
and Home Depot Drive in the City of Mansfield, Tarrant County, Texas.


 


B.Assignor desires
to assign its interest in and to the Purchase Agreement to Assignee upon the terms and conditions contained herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the receipt of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration in hand paid by Assignee to Assignor, the receipt
and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged by Assignor, the parties hereby agree as follows:


 


		1.	Recitals. The foregoing recitals are, by this reference, incorporated into the body of this
Assignment as if the same had been set forth in the body hereof in their entirety.



 


		2.	Assignment and Assumption. Assignor hereby assigns, conveys, transfers, and sets over to
Assignee all of Assignor’s right, title, and interest in and to the Purchase Agreement. Assignee hereby accepts the foregoing
Assignment and assumes, and agrees to perform, all duties, obligations, liabilities, indemnities, covenants, and agreements of
Assignor set forth in the Purchase Agreement.



 


		3.	Counterparts. This document may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which
may be executed by any one or more of the parties hereto, but all of which must constitute one instrument and shall be binding
and effective when all parties hereto have executed at least one counterpart.



 


		4.	Successors. This Assignment shall be binding upon and for the benefit of the parties hereto
and their respective Successors and Assigns.



 


 


 


[signature page to follow]




    	 



    	 



    

 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Assignor
and Assignee have caused this Assignment to be executed as of the day and year first written above.


 


ASSIGNOR:


 


	
        Inland Real Estate Acquisitions Inc.,

        an Illinois corporation
	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Sharon Anderson-Cox	 
	Name:	Sharon Anderson-Cox	 
	Title	SVP	 


 


 


ASSIGNEE:


 


	
        IREIT Mansfield Pointe, L.L.C.,

        a Delaware limited liability company
	 
	 	 	 
	By:	
        Inland Real Estate Income Trust, Inc.,

        a Maryland corporation, its sole member
	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Mary J. Pechous	 
	 	Name:	
        Mary J. Pechous
	 
	 	Title:	Assistant Secretary
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3915 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3915

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
  coastwise trade, in the fisheries, and on the Great Lakes and their 
 tributary and connecting waters in trade with Canada, for the vessel 
                               MARALINDA.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 30, 1996

  Mr. Canady introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
  coastwise trade, in the fisheries, and on the Great Lakes and their 
 tributary and connecting waters in trade with Canada, for the vessel 
                               MARALINDA.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), 
section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and 
sections 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46, United States Code, the 
Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation 
with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade, in 
the fisheries, and on the Great Lakes and their tributary and 
connecting waters in trade with Canada, for the vessel MARALINDA (State 
of Florida registration number C023203-97).
                                 <all>
```