alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AMENDMENT
NO. 2 TO THE GAUCHO GROUP HOLDINGS, INC. 


(FORMERLY
ALGODON WINES & LUXURY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.) 


2018
AWLD EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN


 


Section
4(a) of the Plan, as previously amended, is hereby further amended as follows:


 


Section
4. Shares Available for Awards


 


(a)
Shares Available. Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 4(c) of the Plan, the aggregate number of Shares that may be
issued under the Plan, excluding shares issued under the Pre-Existing Plans, shall be 5,946,933 Shares, plus an automatic
annual increase to be added on January 1 of each year equal to 2.5% of the total number of Shares outstanding on such date
(including for this purpose any Shares issuable upon conversion of any outstanding capital stock of the Company).


 


(i)
Any Shares subject to an Award issued under this Plan or the Pre-Existing Plans that are canceled, forfeited or expire prior
to exercise or realization, either in full or in part, shall be added to the total number of Shares available for an Award to
be made under the Plan.


 


(ii)
Shares to be issued under the Plan must be authorized but unissued Shares.


 


(iii)
Notwithstanding the foregoing, (A) the number of Shares available for granting Incentive Stock Options under the Plan shall
not exceed the aggregate number of Shares that may be issued under the Plan not taking into account any automatic increase in
the share reserve, subject to adjustment as provided in Section 4(c) of the Plan and subject to the provisions of Section 422
or 424 of the Code or any successor provision and (B) the number of Shares available for granting Restricted Stock and
Restricted Stock Units shall not exceed 500,000, subject to adjustment as provided in Section 4(c) of the Plan. Shares
tendered by Participants as full or partial payment to the Company upon exercise of an Award, and Shares withheld by or
otherwise remitted to the Company to satisfy a Participant’s tax withholding obligations with respect to an Award,
shall not then become available for issuance under the Plan. Any Shares withheld or otherwise remitted to the Company to
satisfy tax withholding obligations, to pay the exercise price of an Award, or Shares of Common Stock subject to a
broker-assisted cashless exercise of an Award shall reduce the number of Shares available for issuance under the
Plan.


 


(iv)
The maximum number of Shares subject to an Award granted during a Fiscal Year to any Director (exclusive of Shares subject to
an Award issued to any Director in his or her capacity as an Employee of the Company), together with any cash fees paid to
such Director during the Fiscal Year shall not exceed a total value of $100,000 (calculating the value of any Awards based on
the grant date fair value for financial reporting purposes).
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1850

AN ACT

To extend the Commission on Affordable Housing

and Health Facility Needs for Seniors in the21st Century and to make technical correctionsto the law governing the Commission.
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1850

AN ACT

To extend the Commission on Affordable Housing and

Health Facility Needs for Seniors in the 21st Century

and to make technical corrections to the law governing

the Commission.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1850 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Senior Housing Com3 mission Extension Act of 2001’’.

4 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF SENIORS HOUSING AND HEALTH FA5 CILITY NEEDS COMMISSION AND TECHNICAL

6 CORRECTIONS.

7 Section 525 of the Departments of Veterans Affairs

8 and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent

9 Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 (42 U.S.C. 12701

10 note) is amended—

11 (1) in subsection (d)(4), by striking ‘‘reimburs12 able’’ and inserting ‘‘non-reimbursable’’;

13 (2) in the first sentence of subsection (f)—

14 (A) by striking ‘‘Banking and’’; and

15 (B) by striking ‘‘December 31, 2001’’ and

16 inserting ‘‘December 31, 2002’’; and

17 (3) in subsection (g), by striking ‘‘June 30,

18 2002’’ and inserting ‘‘March 31, 2003’’.

Passed the House of Representatives September 24,

2001.

Attest:

Clerk.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4025

DEREK O. PENDELTON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.

Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-00-248)

Submitted: January 30, 2002

Decided: February 25, 2002

Before WIDENER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

James E. Joyner, Forest Heights, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas

M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Steven M. Dettelbach, Assistant

United States Attorney, James M. Trusty, Assistant United States

Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Derek Owen Pendelton was convicted by a jury of possession with

intent to distribute cocaine base, 21 U.S.C.A. § 841 (West 1999 &

Supp. 2001), felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 922(g)(1) (West 2001), and possession of a firearm in furtherance

of a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (1994). Pendelton

appeals his conviction. We affirm. 

Pendelton asserts error in the district court’s denial of his motion

to suppress the fruits of an search pursuant to a search warrant that

he claims was not supported by probable cause. The affidavit presented in support of the warrant application was supported by probable cause. The reliance of the requesting agent on information provided by a confidential informant was not misplaced, and the

confidential informant’s testimony at Pendelton’s trial further supported the district court’s finding that the magistrate judge had probable cause to issue the warrant. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236

(1983); United States v. Han, 74 F.3d 537, 539 (4th Cir. 1996). 

Pendelton also contends on appeal that the district court erred in

denying his motion for mistrial when evidence was admitted that he

possessed a gun prior to the date of the charged criminal activity.

"[E]vidence of uncharged conduct is not considered other crimes evidence if it arose out of the same . . . series of transactions as the

charged offense, . . . or if it is necessary to complete the story of the

crime (on) trial." United States v. Kennedy, 32 F.3d 876, 885 (4th Cir.

1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, "the mere fact that

the evidence involved activities occurring before the charged time

frame of the conspiracy does not automatically transform that evidence into ‘other crimes’ evidence." Id. Here, the testimony and statements at issue helped to explain the crime and rebutted the testimony

of one of Pendelton’s witnesses. The district court’s denial of Pendelton’s motion for a mistrial was not error. 

Accordingly, we affirm Pendelton’s convictions and sentence. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

2 UNITED STATES v. PENDELTON
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument will not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

UNITED STATES v. PENDELTON 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Manufacturers Traders

and Trust Company

v. Case No. 06-cv-454-SM

Wayne R. Dalpe, et al. 

ORDER

Re: Document No. 9, Stipulation re: Case Settlement

Ruling: Stipulation of settlement by all appearing parties is

approved. Case dismissed by agreement; proceeds held by the Clerk

shall be distributed in accordance with the stipulation. 

 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief District Judge

Date: May 30, 2007

cc: Jonathan M. Flagg, Esq. 

Jeffrey Clark, Esq.

Michael Randall, Esq.

James E. Brown, Esq. 

Financial Administrator, USDC-NH

Case 1:06-cv-00454-SM Document 10 Filed 05/30/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

National Pasteurized Egg

v. Civil No. 07-cv-00103-JL

L. John Davidson

 PROCEDURAL ORDER

The bench trial in this matter will commence July 18, 2011

at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2. On or before June 20, 2011, each

party shall file:

A. The materials required by Rule 26(a)(3)(A) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 16.2(a);

B. The trial memorandum (not to exceed 25 pages) and

request for findings of fact and rulings of law required by Local

Rule 16.2(b)(2);

C. Any motions in limine (keeping in mind that the case

will be tried without a jury);

D. A joint statement of agreed-upon facts; and

E. A joint timeline of significant events setting forth

all pertinent dates, times, and events, in whatever format the

parties jointly choose (in other words, the parties need not

comply with Local Rule 5.1(a) with respect to the timeline).

Case 1:07-cv-00103-JL Document 124 Filed 04/12/11 Page 1 of 2
F. Davidson shall be permitted to take the deposition of

D. William Toone at a mutually agreeable time. 

On or before July 1, 2011, each party shall file any

objections to the other side's final pretrial materials, as

provided by Rule 26(a)(3)(B) and Local Rule 16.2(d). The final

pretrial conference in this matter shall take place on July 12,

2011, at 10:00 a.m., in chambers. 

SO ORDERED.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: April 12, 2011

cc: D. William Toone, Esq.

Peter G. Callaghan, Esq.

David M. Bownes, Esq.

2

Case 1:07-cv-00103-JL Document 124 Filed 04/12/11 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Alan F. Beane, et al. 

v. Case No. 06-cv-446-SM

Glenn L. Beane, et al.

ORDER

Re: Document No. 8, Motion to Compel Production of Documents

from Plaintiffs’ Counsel 

Ruling: Denied. The motion violates LR 7.1(a)(2), LR 37.1(a),

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d) and 37(a)(2)(B). Plaintiff is awarded its

reasonable attorneys fees and costs to be paid by defense counsel.

If there is a disagreement about the amount of fees, notify the

clerk within 10 days and we will have a hearing. Otherwise they are

to be paid within 10 days. The motion to compel tax filings

(document no. 9) is denied as premature. 

/s/ James R. Muirhead

James R. Muirhead

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Date: March 6, 2007

cc: Michael J. Persson, Esq. 

W.E. Whittington, Esq. 

Case 1:06-cv-00446-SM Document 11 Filed 03/06/07 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       1,001,505
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,498,490
<ALLOWANCES>                                   742,920
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,740,196
<PP&E>                                         765,237
<DEPRECIATION>                                 476,240
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,868,426
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,165,601
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     10,000
<COMMON>                                        12,651
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,381,701
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,303,545
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,924,357
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             126,304
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                373,571
<INCOME-TAX>                                   114,254
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   264,935
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.021
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.021


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. 07-cr-79-01-JD

Anthony Yarbrough

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

8) filed by defendant is granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days. The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3131(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. 

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: April 20, 2007

cc: Joseph Caulfield, Esq.

Peter Papps, AUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:07-cr-00079-JD Document 9 Filed 04/20/07 Page 1 of 1
B.6. Distribution of Agricultural Banks by the Share of Their Total Loans that are Nonperforming

Percent

Less than 20.0 percent

2.0 2.0-4.9 5.0-9.9 10.0-14.9 15.0-19.9 and

Period Total percent percent percent percent percent over

1993...... 100.0 80.7 15.8 2.8 .6 .1 ...

1994...... 100.0 85.5 12.3 1.9 .2 .1 .0

1995...... 100.0 83.4 14.0 2.1 .3 .1 .1

1996...... 100.0 81.9 15.4 2.3 .2 .1 .1

1997...... 100.0 84.5 12.9 2.5 .1 .1 .0

1998...... 100.0 81.7 15.1 2.8 .3 ... .1

1999...... 100.0 84.8 12.6 2.4 .3 .0 ...

2000...... 100.0 85.0 12.8 1.8 .3 ... ...

2001...... 100.0 80.0 17.3 2.5 .1 .0 ...

2002...... 100.0 79.7 17.1 2.8 .2 .1 ...

2003...... 100.0 81.2 15.0 3.3 .4 .1 .0

1994: Q3... 100.0 83.5 13.7 2.4 .3 .0 .0

 Q4... 100.0 85.5 12.3 1.9 .2 .1 .0

1995: Q1... 100.0 81.6 15.3 2.7 .2 .1 .1

 Q2... 100.0 82.0 15.0 2.6 .2 .1 .1

 Q3... 100.0 82.8 14.3 2.4 .3 .0 .1

 Q4... 100.0 83.4 14.0 2.1 .3 .1 .1

1996: Q1... 100.0 78.1 17.4 3.6 .6 .1 .1

 Q2... 100.0 78.0 17.2 4.0 .6 .1 .1

 Q3... 100.0 79.2 17.1 3.1 .5 .1 .1

 Q4... 100.0 81.9 15.4 2.3 .2 .1 .1

1997: Q1... 100.0 79.1 16.7 3.7 .4 .1 .1

 Q2... 100.0 80.5 15.8 3.2 .3 ... .1

 Q3... 100.0 81.8 15.2 2.7 .2 .1 .1

 Q4... 100.0 84.5 12.9 2.5 .1 .1 .0

1998: Q1... 100.0 80.6 16.3 2.8 .1 .1 .1

 Q2... 100.0 80.8 15.9 2.9 .3 .1 .0

 Q3... 100.0 80.3 16.2 3.1 .3 .1 .0

 Q4... 100.0 81.7 15.1 2.8 .3 ... .1

1999: Q1... 100.0 77.2 17.8 4.5 .5 .0 .0

 Q2... 100.0 78.7 16.9 3.8 .6 ... ...

 Q3... 100.0 80.4 15.9 3.4 .3 .0 ...

 Q4... 100.0 84.8 12.6 2.4 .3 .0 ...

2000: Q1... 100.0 81.8 14.8 2.9 .5 .0 ...

 Q2... 100.0 82.2 15.1 2.4 .3 .0 .0

 Q3... 100.0 83.0 14.9 1.7 .4 .0 ...

 Q4... 100.0 85.0 12.8 1.8 .3 ... ...

2001: Q1... 100.0 80.3 16.9 2.6 .2 .1 ...

 Q2... 100.0 80.2 16.6 3.0 .2 .1 ...

 Q3... 100.0 78.7 17.8 3.2 .3 ... ...

 Q4... 100.0 80.0 17.3 2.5 .1 .0 ...

2002: Q1... 100.0 76.8 19.3 3.7 .2 .0 ...

 Q2... 100.0 76.8 19.6 3.1 .4 .0 ...

 Q3... 100.0 77.8 18.8 3.2 .2 .0 ...

 Q4... 100.0 79.7 17.1 2.8 .2 .1 ...

2003: Q1... 100.0 75.4 19.9 4.1 .3 .2 .0

 Q2... 100.0 76.2 19.2 4.0 .4 .1 .1

 Q3... 100.0 77.7 18.3 3.6 .3 .1 .0

 Q4... 100.0 81.2 15.0 3.3 .4 .1 .0

 Note. Nonperforming loans are loans in nonaccruing status or past due 90 days or more. Renegotiated or restructured

loans in compliance with the modified terms are not included. Agricultural banks are defined in the introduction to section B.

Yearly data are as of December 31. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.

 ... Not applicable.

26
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

USA

v. Civil No. 07-cv-398-JM

Henry W. McElroy, Jr.,

Donna Q. McElroy, and

Digital Federal Credit Union

O R D E R

The United States of America moves for partial summary

judgment as a matter of law, that “(1) the United States has

valid and subsisting federal tax liens on all property and rights

to property of Henry W. McElroy, Jr., including his interest in

the property located at 15 Iroquois Road, Nashua, New Hampshire,

as more particularly described in the Complaint; (2) the Court

order the federal tax liens for the liabilities of Henry W.

McElroy, Jr., be foreclosed against the Property, and that said

Property be sold in a judicial sale, according to law, free and

clear, with the net proceeds of the sale, after the satisfaction

of the direct costs of sale, to be distributed to the United

States, in accord with its lawful priority.” Document no. 28.

Case 1:07-cv-00398-LM Document 30 Filed 06/15/09 Page 1 of 3
2

Facts

On February 25, 2009, the United States secured a judgment

for unpaid federal income taxes against Henry W. McElroy, Jr., in

the amount of $52,313.59. Assessments were made for these taxes,

penalties and interest as of January 1, 2009.

Discussion

When the assessments were made, federal tax liens arose on

Mr. McElroy’s interest in real estate at 15 Iroquois Road,

Nashua, New Hampshire 03063. 26 U.S.C. § 6321. Once those taxes

are reduced to judgment, as they are here, the United States is

entitled to foreclose its federal tax liens on the property. 

Donna Q. McElroy and Digital Federal Credit Union have priority

interests in the real estate over the United States and these

three parties have entered into a stipulation as to priority of

foreclosure proceeds.

It is ordered that the United Sates has valid and subsisting 

federal tax liens on the real estate at 15 Iroquois Road, Nashua,

New Hampshire, 03063, and that the tax liens be foreclosed

against the property and that the property be sold in a judicial

sale, according to law, free and clear of all liens, with the net

proceeds of the sale, after the satisfaction of the direct costs

Case 1:07-cv-00398-LM Document 30 Filed 06/15/09 Page 2 of 3
3

of sale, to be distributed to the United States, in accord with

its lawful priority.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: June 15, 2009

cc: Andrea A. Kafka, Esq.

 Henry W. McElroy, Jr., Esq.

 David A. Keele, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00398-LM Document 30 Filed 06/15/09 Page 3 of 3
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7155

JOSEPH FRANKLIN MCBRIDE, II, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RON ANGELONE, Director of the Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-602-AM) Submitted: June 20, 2000 Decided: July 20, 2000 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Franklin McBride, II, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on July 28, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on July 29, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Joseph Franklin McBride, II, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See McBride v. Angelone , No. CA-98-602-AM (E.D. Va. July 29, 1999). * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### In the Matter of Shu'Aib Raheem, Also Known as Shulab Raheem, Appellant, v Robert Dennison, as Chair of the Board of Parole, Respondent.

[807 NYS2d 318]

Apppeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Canfield, J.), entered July 14, 2005 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

Petitioner, who is serving an aggregate prison sentence of 25 years to life following his 1974 conviction of, among other things, murder and kidnapping in the first degree, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding following his fourth appearance before the Board of Parole in November 2003. Petitioner’s request for parole release was denied at that time and, since that determination, petitioner has reappeared before the Board in November 2005 and his request for parole release again was denied. Accordingly, the instant matter must be dismissed as moot *(see Matter of Baez v Travis,*10 AD3d 778 [2004], *lv denied*4 NY3d 702 [2004]). Furthermore, we are unpersuaded by petitioner’s assertion that this matter presents an exception to the mootness doctrine *(see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne,*50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
#### In the Matter of Carl DRUCKER, Bankrupt-Appellee, David Berlinger, Creditor-Appellant.

No. 170.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 10, 1938.

Benjamin Bayers, of New York City (Samuel Masía, of New York City, of counsel), for creditor-appellant.

Duberstein & Schwartz, of Brooklyn, N. Y. (Max Schwartz and Samuel C. Duberstein, both of Brooklyn, N. Y., on the brief), for bankrupt-appellee.

Before L. HAND, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed.
Exhibit 32


  Written Statement of the President and Chief Executive and Financial Officer
                          Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, I, the undersigned
President and Chief Executive and Financial Officer of Avenue Entertainment
Group, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended September
30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.



                                                              Cary Brokaw
November 14, 2003