alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Schedule of Ommitted Lease Agreements



 Exhibit 10.11 
  
 Schedule of Omitted Management Agreements 
  
 The following management agreements have not been filed as exhibits to this Post Effective Amendment No. One to the Registration Statement
pursuant to Instruction 2 to Item 601 of Regulation S-K: 
  

	1.	Property Management Agreement dated as of December 3, 2004 between Intrawest U.S. Commercial Property Management, Inc. (Manager) and CNL Income Sandestin, LP (Owner).


  

	2.	Property Management Agreement dated as of December 3, 2004 between Intrawest U.S. Commercial Property Management, Inc. (Manager) and CNL Income Copper, LP (Owner).


  

	3.	Property Management Agreement dated as of December 3, 2004 between Intrawest U.S. Commercial Property Management, Inc. (Manager) and CNL Income Snowshoe, LP (Owner).


  

	4.	Property Management Agreement dated as of December 3, 2004 between Intrawest U.S. Commercial Property Management, Inc. (Manager) and CNL Income Stratton, LP (Owner).


  

	5.	Property Management Agreement dated December 3, 2004 between Playground Real Estate Ltd. (Manager) and CNL Income Canada Lessee Corp. (Head Lessee) 

  
 The terms of the first four Omitted Management Agreements for the US Resort Village
Properties are substantially similar to the Property Management Agreement dated as of December 3, 2004 between Intrawest U.S. Commercial Property Management, Inc. (Manager) and CNL Income Mammoth, LP (Owner), which was filed as Exhibit 10.10 to CNL
Income Properties, Inc.’s Post Effective Amendment No. One to the Registration Statement. 
  
 The terms of the one Omitted Management Agreements for the Whistler resort village property is substantially similar to the Property Management Agreement dated December 3, 2004 between Playground Real Estate Ltd.
(Manager) and CNL Income Canada Lessee Corp. (Head Lessee), which was filed as Exhibit 10.10 to CNL Income Properties, Inc.’s Post Effective Amendment No. One to the Registration Statement. 
  
 All of the Omitted Management Agreements provide for different rental constraints depending
upon the facilities offered by the particular resort village, different governing state laws depending upon the site of the resort village and as to the management agreements for the Canadian Resort Village Properties the covenants not to compete
are structured differently to account for our purchase of an option for certain competing space at Blue Mountain.
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*Walter Moore, Defendant.

County Court, Saratoga County,

November 5, 1956.

*Carleton J. King, District Attorney (James A. O’Connor*of counsel), for plaintiff.

*Charles La Belle*for defendant.

Richard J. Sherman, J.

TMs is a motion under section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that the defendant has been charged with assault in the third degree and upon the further charge of disorderly conduct and that the proceedings are now pending before the learned Justice of the Peace Cedric Wierman, a Justice of the Peace in and for the Town of Greenfield.

The defendant bases his motion upon the contention that the complaint in the assault proceeding is an indictable misdemeanor. He further argues that the charge of disorderly conduct should be merged in the assault charge.

There are two recent cases in point, *People*v. *Moran*(1 Misc 2d 709) and *People*v. *Liteer*(3 Misc 2d 505). Each of these cases spells out the formula upon which transfer of cases may be granted: (1). That the case presents intricate and complicated questions of fact. (2). That the case presents difficult questions of law. (3). That property rights are involved. (4). That a decision may be far-reaching in its effect and become a precedent which will regulate a matter of general interest.

The burden of showing grounds for the removal is upon the defendant. *(People*v. *Katzowits,*150 Misc. 63; *People*v. *Rosenberg,*59 Misc. 342.)

The defendant has not met that burden in this case. No questions of law are involved as of the present time.

Sound public policy is that these cases be disposed of in local courts of special sessions. The application is, therefore, denied.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32(a) SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER I, Sherrill Stone, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Peerless Mfg. Co. (the
Company), certify, that pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States
Code:  (1)
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended
December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and(2)
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the
Report. /s/ Sherrill StoneSherrill StoneChairman of the Board and
Chief Executive OfficerDate: February 14, 2005
 The foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350; it is not
being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date
hereof, regardless of any general incorporation languages in such filing.
**Exhibit32**

CERTIFICATIONPursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-Kof US Gold CanadianAcquisition Corporation, a Colorado corporation (the “Company”) for the yearended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission(the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the Company does herebycertify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to thebest of our knowledge:

# The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

# The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

Dated:  May 17, 2007.
|        |   | US GOLD CANADIAN ACQUISITION CORPORATION                       |   |   |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   |   |                                                           |   |   |
|   |   | /s/ Robert R. McEwen                                           |   |   |
|   |   | Robert R. McEwen, Chief Executive Officer and  Chairman of the |   |   |
|   |   | Board of Directors                                             |   |   |
|   |   |                                                           |   |   |
|   |   | /s/ William F. Pass                                            |   |   |
|   |   | William F. Pass, Vice President and                            |   |   |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer                                        |   |   |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32
 CERTIFICATE OF INTERIM CEOAND CFO
  (1)
    
    the annual report on Form 10-K of the Registrant, to which this certificate is
attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)); and(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
  /s/ W. Brett MorganW. Brett Morgan, Interim CEO/s/ Teresa L. MartinTeresa L. Martin, CFO
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         192,000
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,694,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (396,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    2,016,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,610,000
<PP&E>                                         22,890,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (19,307,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7,876,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,253,000
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    (344,000)
<COMMON>                                       3,382,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7,876,000
<SALES>                                        12,816,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               12,525,000
<CGS>                                          12,073,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  13,674,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (13,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             241,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,376,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        

</TABLE>
#### Edward P. Floyd-Jones v. Esther Schaan.

Motion granted.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 24-0094

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JOEL WESLEY SPEISER,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including November 6, 2024, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 3 2024

10/03/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0094
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 Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
 /s/ J. Hicks LanierJ. Hicks LanierChairman and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)September 10, 2008/s/ K. Scott GrassmyerK. Scott GrassmyerSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Controller
(Principal Financial Officer)September 10, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 169 (Friday, August 29, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 50980]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20078]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1773-DR]


Missouri; Amendment No. 9 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Missouri (FEMA-1773-DR), dated June 25, 2008, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 20, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Missouri is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of June 25, 2008.

    Mississippi, Perry, and Ste. Genevieve Counties for Public 
Assistance (already designated for emergency protective measures 
[Category B], limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public 
Assistance program.)

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-20078 Filed 8-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
Order entered July 26, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 00423
- CV ZAAN, LLC, Appellant
V. BARRY SANGANI, SANGI NI PROPERTIES, LTD . AND KATHY WEBSTER, Appellee s On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 296
- 02993
- 2009 

### O RDER The Court has before it appellees’ July 24, 2013 unopposed second motion for extension of time to file briefs. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS appellees to file their briefs by Augus t 26, 2013. No further extensions will be granted absent a showing of exceptional circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.4

                      [Neose Technologies, Inc. Letterhead]

                                        March 3, 2005

Joseph J. Villafranca
Executive Vice President, Pharmaceutical Development and Operations
Neose Technologies, Inc.
102 Witmer Road
Horsham PA 19044

Dear Joe:

This letter confirms the recent agreement between you and Neose Technologies,
Inc. (the "Company") regarding your compensation from the Company.

You and the Company have agreed that your Base Salary, as defined in the
Employment Agreement between you and the Company, dated September 12, 2002 (the
"Employment Agreement"), for the 12-month period that commenced on March 1,
2005, is $273,420. Effective March 1, 2006, your Base Salary will not be less
than $315,952.

You and the Company have also agreed that one-half of any Annual Bonus (as
defined in the Employment Agreement) payable to you in respect of 2004 and all
of any Annual Bonus payable to you in respect of 2005 will be paid in the form
of Restricted Stock Units (as defined in the Company's Equity Incentive Plan
(the "Plan")), subject to the terms of the Plan and an award agreement that, in
the case of RSUs awarded in respect of a 2004 annual bonus, is substantially in
the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, and, in the case of RSUs awarded in
respect of a 2005 annual bonus, is substantially in the form attached hereto as
Exhibit B. In addition, your bonus target for 2005 only will be 62.5% of the sum
of (i) your Base Salary plus (ii) $42,532.

In addition, in recognition of the changes to your cash compensation described
above, the Company will grant to you, effective today, that number of RSUs as is
determined by dividing $42,532 by today's closing price of our stock, subject to
the terms of the Plan and an award agreement substantially in the form attached
hereto as Exhibit B and subject to your execution of this letter.

Your signature below constitutes your written consent to the reduction of your
Base Salary and to the payment of a portion of your 2004 Annual Bonus and all of
your 2005 Annual Bonus in Restricted Stock Units, each as described above.
Therefore, neither the reduction of Base Salary described above nor the payment
of part of your 2004 Annual Bonus and all of your 2005 in the form of Restricted
Stock Units will constitute Good Reason (as defined in the Employment Agreement)
for your termination of employment with the Company.

Except to the extent modified by this letter, the Employment Agreement continues
in full force and effect.

Please execute this letter in the space provided below to acknowledge the
foregoing agreements.

                                        Sincerely,

                                        /s/ C. Boyd Clarke
                                        C. Boyd Clarke
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
Acknowledged and Agreed:

/s/ Joseph J. Villafranca
-------------------------
Joseph J. Villafranca
#### Anthony Padgett, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The Court of Claims correctly granted summary judgment in the State’s favor, dismissing this claim for damages suffered as the result of an unprovoked attack by a fellow inmate within a cellblock. The State is not an insurer of inmate safety; its duty is to exercise reasonable care to prevent foreseeable attacks by other inmates *(see, Sebastiano v State of New York,*112 AD2d 562, 564; *see also, Kemp v Waldron,*115 AD2d 869). Claimant failed to submit evidentiary material sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact on the issue of foreseeability or to controvert the State’s demonstra*915tion that segregation of the assailant was not warranted under prison rules. Finally, the mere fact that a guard was not present within the cellblock at the time of the incident was insufficient, absent a showing that prison officials had notice of an especially dangerous situation, to support a finding that the State failed to exercise reasonable care *(see, Mobley v State of New York,*1 AD2d 731, *rearg denied*1 AD2d 928). The court also properly denied claimant’s motion to dismiss affirmative defenses on the ground that the motion was moot. (Appeal from order of Court of Claims, McCabe, J. —summary judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.
#### Uri VAUGHAN v. Paul CANIK and J. W. Doxey.

No. 1275.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Jan. 22, 1934.

Modisette & Adams, of Jennings, for appellant. . ' ,

J. Sheldon Toomer, of Lake Charles, fqr appellees.

ELLIOTT, Judge.

In this case Paul Canik, one of the defendants and appellees herein, has, since it was submitted, departed this life, leaving surviving him Mistress, Paul Canik, his widow in community, and seven children, to wit, Frank F. Canik, Steven Canik, Joseph Canik, Georgb Canik, Veronica Canik,' Caroline Canik, and 'Gertrude Canik, all born of his in'arriage witii her, and his said widow and his said children, being his sole heirs,- have by order of this *369court been made parties defendant, appellees, in the place and stead of said Paul Canik, deceased.

For the reasons stated in the suit entitled Uri Vaughan v. Paul Canik and L. O. Miller (No. 766 on the docket of the district court, parish of Cameron) 152 So. 864, the judgment appealed from herein is annulled, avoided, and set aside, the note of testimony is reopened, and the case remanded on the question of prescription.

The plaintiff is to have an opportunity, exercising proper diligence, to obtain and put into the note of testimony further testimony in support of the payments, appearing as credits on the backs of the notes sued upon, to show the dates of payment, and that the payments emanated from the makers of the note or one of them, and that the letters offered in evidence emanated from the makers and are in their handwriting, or one of them, and were written by their authority and direction or one of them, expressly or tacitly given. Plaintiff is to have the right to show, if he can, the interruption of the prescription pleaded by any additional evidence legally obtainable and admissible.

The defendants are to have equal right and opportunity to obtain and support by any additional, admissible evidence the prescription pleaded.

The case to be then resubmitted and disposed of as in due course.
## St at e of Ne w York Supre me Court , Appe llat e D i vi s i on T h i rd J udi cial D e

part me n t Decided and Entered: December 15, 2016 522979

________________________________ In the Matter of CARL GEE, Petitioner, v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT DONALD VENETTOZZI, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: October 25, 2016 Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Garry, Lynch and Rose, JJ.

__________ Carl Gee, Auburn, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. Determination confirmed. No opinion. Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Garry, Lynch and Rose, JJ., concur.-2- 522979

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 656 

To amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to repeal the authority 

of the President to assume emergency control of the police of the District 

of Columbia. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2021 

Ms. NORTON (for herself and Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to repeal 

the authority of the President to assume emergency control of the police of the District of Columbia. 

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 ‘‘District of Columbia 

5 Police Home Rule Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 656 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF AUTHORITY OF PRESIDENT TO ASSUME 

2 EMERGENCY CONTROL OF POLICE OF DIS3 TRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

4 (a) REPEAL OF AUTHORITY.—The District of Colum5 bia Home Rule Act is amended by striking section 740 

6 (sec. 1–207.40, D.C. Official Code). 

7 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents 

8 of such Act is amended by striking the item relating to 

9 section 740. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS