alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 859 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 13, 2007. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany 

the bill (H.R. 2082) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 

year 2008 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of 

the United States Government, the Community Management 

Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and 

Disability System, and for other purposes. All points of order 

against the conference report and against its consideration 

are waived. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
9

A.5. Average Effective Interest Rates on Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersPercent

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sma

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid-

1996...... 8.4 8.8 9.5 8.6 9.7 8.0 10.2 10.1 9.8 7.8 1997...... 9.2 9.6 9.8 9.9 9.8 8.5 10.2 10.0 9.9 8.8 1998...... 9.0 9.4 9.7 9.6 9.3 8.0 10.1 9.9 9.7 8.4 1999...... 8.7 9.1 9.1 9.2 8.8 7.6 9.7 9.5 9.3 8.1 2000...... 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.3 9.3 10.3 10.2 10.1 9.4 2001...... 7.8 7.6 8.0 8.4 8.3 7.0 9.1 8.7 8.3 7.3 2002...... 5.9 6.1 5.8 6.4 6.7 4.8 7.3 7.0 6.5 5.3 2003...... 5.4 5.1 5.4 5.7 6.0 4.6 6.7 6.4 5.9 4.8 2004...... 5.4 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.5 4.8 6.6 6.4 5.9 5.0 2005...... 6.7 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.0 6.0 7.7 7.5 7.1 6.5 2006...... 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.4 7.7 8.9 8.9 8.6 8.0 2007...... 8.3 8.6 8.3 8.5 8.5 7.6 9.0 9.0 8.7 8.0 2004: Q4... 5.5 5.5 5.2 6.0 5.5 4.9 6.9 6.5 6.3 5.1 2005: Q1... 6.6 6.3 6.3 6.9 6.9 5.7 7.3 6.9 6.9 6.4  Q2... 6.5 6.5 6.7 6.8 6.8 6.0 7.6 7.4 6.9 6.3  Q3... 6.7 6.9 6.8 7.1 6.9 5.8 7.7 7.6 7.1 6.3  Q4... 7.4 7.5 7.7 7.5 7.7 6.7 8.3 8.1 7.7 7.1 2006: Q1... 8.0 7.9 8.0 8.1 8.1 7.3 8.5 8.5 8.2 7.8  Q2... 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.3 8.0 7.4 8.6 8.8 8.5 7.8  Q3... 8.6 8.4 8.8 8.8 9.0 8.3 9.3 9.2 8.7 8.4  Q4... 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 9.1 7.5 9.2 9.0 8.8 8.1 2007: Q1... 8.5 8.9 8.3 8.7 8.9 8.1 9.2 9.1 8.8 8.4  Q2... 8.6 9.0 8.5 8.9 8.7 7.9 9.2 9.1 8.9 8.4  Q3... 8.5 8.9 8.6 8.8 8.4 7.7 9.1 9.2 8.8 8.1  Q4... 7.7 8.2 8.1 7.8 8.1 6.9 8.6 8.5 8.3 7.4 2008: Q1... 6.5 6.7 6.7 6.8 7.1 5.8 7.6 7.4 6.9 6.3  Q2... 5.7 5.5 5.8 6.1 5.9 4.9 6.7 6.4 6.2 5.4  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Effective (compoundcalculated from the stated rate and other terms of the loans and weighted by loan size. Quarterly estimates are expressed as an annual loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
Exhibit 10.2


                              TERMINATION AGREEMENT

         THIS  TERMINATION  AGREEMENT  effective  as of April 20,  2004,  by and
between Cytomedix, Inc. ("Company") and Kshitij Mohan, Ph.D. ("Consultant").

                                    RECITALS

         WHEREAS,  the  Company and the  Consultant  entered  into a  Consulting
Agreement  ("Agreement") effective as of January 1, 2004, whereby the Consultant
provided  certain  services  to the  Company  as  provided  in  such  Consulting
Agreement; and

         WHEREAS,  the Company and the  Consultant  have agreed to terms whereby
the Consultant shall accept employment as the Company's Chief Executive Officer,
as provided in an Employment Agreement of even date herewith; and

         WHEREAS,  the  Company  and the  Consultant  have  mutually  agreed  to
terminate the Consulting Agreement.

         NOW,  THEREFORE,  in  consideration  of the mutual  promises  contained
herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:

         1. The parties  hereby agree that, as of April 20, 2004, the Consulting
Agreement is hereby terminated.

         2. The Company  further  agrees that,  for the period of any applicable
statute  of  limitations,  it will  continue  to  indemnify  and  hold  harmless
Consultant,  and  any  employees,  agents,  affiliates  and  sub-contractors  of
Consultant  from and against any and all  liability,  loss,  costs,  expenses or
damages,  including,  but not  limited  to,  any and all  expenses  incurred  in
investigating,  preparing or defending  against any  litigation,  arbitration or
other  proceedings or  investigations,  commenced or threatened,  relating to or
arising in  connection  with the  Agreement or services  rendered by  Consultant
pursuant to the Agreement prior to the termination of the Agreement.

         IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,   the  parties  have  executed  this  Termination
Agreement as of the 20th day of April, 2004.


                                            KSHITIJ MOHAN, PH.D

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

                                            CYTOMEDIX, INC.


                                            By:
                                                ------------------------------
                                            Its:
                                                ------------------------------
**Exhibit 10.1.4**

**Exhibit ASCHEDULE OF PARTNERS,ALLOCATION OF PARTNERSHIP UNITS, PERCENTAGE INTERESTSAND THE AGREED UPON VALUE OF NON-CASH INTERCOMPANY ADVANCES**

 
| **Date Admitted** | ** ** | **Name and address of partners**                                    | ** ** | **Value of  non-cash  intercompany  advance** | ** ** | **Partnership  units issued** | ** ** | **Approx.  Percentage  Interests** | ** ** | **Federal ID #** | ** ** |
|------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|----------------------------------------------------|------------|------------------------------------|------------|------------------------------------|------------|----------------------------|------------|
| 05/22/1998(1)          |       | Eagle  Ridge Resort LLC  37 West 57th Street,  12th Floor  New York, NY 10019 |       | $                                                  | 1,198,750  |                               | 35,794     |                               | 0.49       | %                          | 52-2099405 |   |
| 02/04/1997             |       | GTA  LP, Inc.  14 North Adger’s Wharf  Charleston, SC 29401                        |       | $                                                  | —     |                               | 7,302,479  |                               | 99.31      | %                          | 58-2290326 |   |
| 02/04/1997             |       | GTA  GP, Inc.  14 North Adger’s Wharf  Charleston, SC 29401                        |       | $                                                  | —     |                               | 14,684     |                               | 0.20       | %                          | 58-2290217 |   |
| Total  Common OP Units |       |                                                                                    |       |                                               |       | 7,352,957                          |       | 100.00                             | %          |                       |       |
|                   |       | GTA LP, Inc.  10 North Adger’s Wharf  Charleston, SC 29401                         |       | $                                                  | 20,000,000 |                               | 800,000    |                               | 100        | %                          |       |   |

----

 

(1)             transferredfrom Eagle Ridge Lease Company, LLC to current holder effective April 1,2004.

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 00-cr-148-01-SM

Sean Ahearn

ORDER

Re: Document No. 129, Motion for DNA Testing

Ruling: Denied, for the reasons given in the government’s

objection. DNA evidence obtained from the ski mask and presented

at defendant’s criminal trial excluded defendant as the

contributor, and sufficient DNA material to perform testing was not

recoverable from the gloves, which information the jury had. More

precise DNA testing excluding the defendant as the contributor

relative to the ski mask, or excluding him as contributing DNA

material recoverable from the gloves, would not weigh in

defendant’s favor in any material respect. Moreover, the testing

requested is not possible as the items no longer are available for

further testing. Finally, the evidence presented at trial

overwhelmingly established defendant’s guilt of the offenses of

conviction beyond any reasonable doubt, and further DNA testing

would not result in any new material evidence that could raise a

reasonable probability of defendant’s innocence. See 18 U.S.C.

Section 3600

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

Date: June 29, 2009

cc: Counsel of Record

 Sean Ahern

Case 1:00-cr-00148-SM Document 131 Filed 06/29/09 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:08-cv-00057-JL   Document 25   Filed 06/30/08   Page 1 of 1
|   | 1) | 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. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  July      16, 2010 | By:    | s/ Howard A. Brecher                                      |
|-------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|                                |   | Howard      A. Brecher                                    |
|                                |   | Acting      Chairman & Acting Chief Executive Officer |
|                                |   | (Principal      Executive Officer)                        |

----
#### Beatriz Perez, Plaintiff, v City of New York, Defendant. (Action No. 1.) Beatriz Perez, Respondent, v P.K.L. Corp., Doing Business as Chung Kiwa Restaurant, Appellant. (Action No. 2.)

[807 NYS2d 577]

In two related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, EK.L. Corp., doing business as Chung Kiwa Restaurant, the defendant in action No. 2, appeals, as limited by its brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), entered March 9, 2005, which, inter alia, denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in action No. 2.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in action No. 2. The defendant established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]). However, in opposition, the plaintiff submitted evidence raising triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant was negligent, and, if so, whether such negligence was a proximate cause of the accident in question *(see Prince v DiBenedetto,*189 AD2d 757, 759 [1993]).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Goldstein, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Lunn, JJ., concur.
#### Ronnie RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 45587.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

July 12, 1972.

John C. Ertel, San Antonio, for appellant.

Ted Butler, Dist. Atty., Fred Rodriguez and Antonio G. Cantu, Asst. Dist. Attys., San Antonio, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

DAVIS, Commissioner.

This is an appeal from a conviction for the offense of burglary with the intent to commit theft. Upon appellant’s plea of guilty before the court, punishment was assessed at four years.

Court-appointed counsel has filed a brief wherein he recites that after examination of the record, he finds the appeal to be “wholly frivolous and can find no real grounds for appeal.” Attached to the brief is an acknowledgment of receipt of a copy of the brief by appellant stating that he has examined the same as well as the record in the case and approves of the statements contained in the brief.

In accordance with the requirements set forth in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 and Gainous v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 436 S.W.2d 137, appellant’s counsel has set forth two contentions which might arguably support the appeal as follows: (1) The conviction is based in part on unsigned, unauthenticated police reports; (2) The record does not show an intent to commit theft.

The record contains appellant’s judicial confession which was in writing, sworn to and introduced into evidence. This, standing alone, is sufficient to support the con*646viction. Article 1.15, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.; Holder v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 469 S.W.2d 184; Soto v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 456 S.W.2d 389; Waage v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 456 S.W.2d 388.

The record reflects that appellant and his counsel, together with the attorney representing the State, stipulated that the exhibits, of which the police reports were a part, could be considered as part of the statement of facts and that such stipulated evidence was true and correct.

After a thorough examination of the record before us, we find ourselves in agreement with counsel’s conclusion that this appeal, is frivolous.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 189 (Monday, September 29, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 56585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22933]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


Deletion of Agenda Items From September 25, 2008 Open Meeting

September 25, 2008.
    The following items have been deleted from the list of Agenda items 
scheduled for consideration at the September 25, 2008, Open Meeting and 
previously listed in the Commission's Notice of September 18, 2008, 73 
FR 55082, September 25, 2008. Item 3 has been adopted by the 
Commission.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3..................................  Media......................  Title: Kidd Communications and Pamplin
                                                                   Broadcasting-Oregon, Inc. Applications for a
                                                                   Construction Permit for New AM Station at
                                                                   Truckee, California and Jacksonville, Oregon.
                                                                  Summary: The Commission will consider a
                                                                   Memorandum Opinion and Order concerning an
                                                                   Application for Review by Kidd
                                                                   Communications.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-22933 Filed 9-25-08; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
#### Timothy Farmer et al., Respondents, v City of New York et al., Defendants, and Chor Fai Li et al., Appellants.

[807 NYS2d 303]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Chor Fai Li and Chung Lan Li appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), dated January 30, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and (2), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court dated October 15, 2004, as denied that branch of their motion which was for leave to renew.

Ordered that the order dated January 30, 2004, is reversed, on the law, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendants Chor Fai Li and Chung Lan Li, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated October 15, 2004, is dismissed as academic; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants Chor Fai Li and Chung Lan Li.

The defendants Chor Fai Li and Chung Lan Li established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any triable issue of fact as to the location of the accident which allegedly caused the injuries sustained by the plaintiff Timothy Farmer (hereinafter the plaintiff) *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). The evidence submitted by those defendants established that the plaintiff did not fall on the sidewalk abutting their property. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; *Zuckerman v City of New York, supra*at 562).

In light of our determination, the appeal from the order dated October 15, 2004, denying that branch of the motion of the defendants Chor Fai Li and Chung Lan Li which was for leave to renew their motion for summary judgment, has been rendered, academic. Cozier, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.43  


Exhibit I  


 
  First Amendment to the
  Amended and Restated
  WH Holdings (Cayman Islands) Ltd. Stock Incentive Plan
  (as restated on November 5, 2003)    
    


        WHEREAS, Section 10 of the WH Holdings (Cayman Islands) Ltd. Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan") provides that the Board of Directors may amend the
Plan at any time and from time to time; and 


        WHEREAS,
the Board of Directors desires to amend the Plan effective as of January 28, 2004 to provide that the repurchase price for shares purchased at fair market value shall
always be determined as of the date of repurchase; and 


        WHEREAS,
this amendment shall supersede the provisions of the Plan to the extent those provisions are inconsistent with the provisions of this amendment. 


        THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 


        Appendix A,
Section 15(d) of the Plan shall be amended in its entirety to read as follows: 



        (d)   Company's
Repurchase Option. At the discretion of the Board or the Committee, the Company may reserve to itself and/or its assignee(s) in the Option Agreement a right to
repurchase Shares held by an Optionee for a period of ninety (90) days beginning on the later of (i) the day after the six month anniversary of the day the Shares for which the Option is
exercised are acquired and (ii) the day of such Optionee's termination of employment from the Company for cash and/or cancellation of purchase money indebtedness, at: (A) the Fair Market
Value of such Shares on the repurchase date, provided, that such right to repurchase Shares terminates following an Initial Public Offering; or (B) the Optionee's exercise price, provided such
right to repurchase Shares at the exercise price lapses at the rate of at least twenty percent (20%) per year over five (5) years from the date of grant of the option. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, as permitted by California law, an Optionee who is an officer, director, manager or consultant of the Company or the Parent or a Subsidiary of the Company may be subject to additional or
greater restrictions. 












QuickLinks


First Amendment to the Amended and Restated WH Holdings (Cayman Islands) Ltd. Stock Incentive Plan (as restated on November 5, 2003)
skip to main navigation
skip to secondary navigation
skip to content
| What's New · What's Next · Site Map · A-Z Index · Careers · RSS · All Videos · Current FAQs |  | Search  Advanced Search |  |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|-----------------------------------|--|

| About |
|-------|
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lionel Pitman, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 834]

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J.), rendered January 13, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted rape in the first degree and two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s application for assignment of new counsel, made as jury selection was about to commence. After receiving a suitable opportunity to be heard, defendant failed to establish good cause for such a substitution *(see People v Sides,*75 NY2d 822 [1990]). Defendant’s vague and conclusory complaint about his attorney amounted to nothing more than an assertion that the attorney was “interrogating” and “not taking a liking” to his client. Furthermore, counsel went on to provide effective assistance at the trial, without any further complaint from defendant. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
EXHIBIT
23




CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-47415, 33-17488, 33-60196, 333-18135, 333-136061 and 333-138506 on Form S-8
and Registration Statement No. 333-25377 on Form S-3, of our report dated
September 24, 2010 (November 10, 2010 as to the effects of the restatement
discussed in Note 1), relating to the consolidated financial statements of The
Dress Barn, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) (which report expresses an
unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the
Company’s adoption of Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 470-20, “Debt
with Conversion and Other Options” and ASC 810-10, “Consolidations – Overall”
effective July 26, 2009 and ASC 740-10, “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income
Taxes – An Interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109” effective July 29, 2007)
and of our report dated September 24, 2010 relating to the effectiveness of the
Company’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of The Dress Barn, Inc. for the year ended July 31,
2010.




/s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP




New York,
New York


November
10, 2010
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02234-WYD-MEH 

SCOTT GRABER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AMERISPHERE MORTGAGE FINANCE, LLC, 

Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the parties’ Stipulated Motion for 

Dismissal with Prejudice [ECF No. 30], filed January 10, 2012. After carefully reviewing 

the above-captioned case, I find that the stipulation should be approved and this case 

should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 41(a). Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that the Stipulated Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice [ECF No. 30] 

is APPROVED. In accordance therewith, this matter is DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE, each party to bear its own attorney fees and costs. 

 Dated: January 11, 2012. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 s/ Wiley Y. Daniel 

 WILEY Y. DANIEL, 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:11-cv-02234-WYD-MEH Document 31 Filed 01/11/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1