alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10k
December 2, 1999


Mr. Brent Buck
Murray Income Properties
299 South 9th Street
Suite 203
Oxford, MS  38655

RE:      Tower Place Festival
         Management Contract Renewal

Dear Brent:

Our current management agreement, dated December 12, 1994 and renewed each year
in letter agreements between Murray Income Properties and CK Retail Charlotte
Overhead Limited Partnership is in the process of expiring. It is our desire to
renew this management contract upon the same terms and conditions as the
previous management, dated December 12, 1994, with the exception that the term
shall now expire on December 31, 2000. I have attached as Exhibit "A", a copy of
the December 12, 1994 management agreement and would like you to indicate your
approval of the renewal and the new expiration date by signing this renewal
agreement in the appropriate space below.

It has been a pleasure to be the property manager/leasing agent at Tower Place
Festival and we look forward to continuing our relationship as your management
agent in the future.

RENEWAL AGREEMENT ACCEPTED:

<TABLE>
<S>                                         <C>
CK Charlotte Overhead Limited Partnership   Tower Place Joint Venture
a North Carolina Limited Partnership        By: Murray Income Properties I, LTD.
By:  Childress Klein Retail-Charlotte           a Texas Ltd. Partnership, Joint Venturer
     #2, Inc., Its General Partner          By: Murray Realty Investors VIII, Inc.
                                                a Texas Corp., General Partner


BY:  /s/ David Haggart                      By: /s/ Brent Buck
     ------------------------------             -----------------------------------------
     David Haggart, Vice President              Brent Buck, Executive Vice President

Attest/Witness:                             Witness:


   /s/ Wendy Roy                            /s/ Joni Armstrong
-----------------------------------         ------------------

Title:  Secretary                           Name:  Joni Armstrong

(Corporate Seal)
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT NO. 10.3

================

AMENDMENT TO ASSIGNMENT TO OPTION TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT

-------------------------------------------------------
The Option to Purchaser Agreement entered into between Natalma Industries, Inc.,
a Nevada corporation, and John Martin, an individual, on December 11, 1998, is
hereby amended as follows:

     5.     Natalma shall complete a minimum $80,000 Cdn.
     Phase One work program on or before September 1, 2000.

     Dated this 21st day of August, 1999.

     Natalma Industries, Inc.
     By:/s/ Derick Sinclair,

     President and Chairman of the Board

     /s/ John Martin
Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

Byron White United States Courthouse

1823 Stout Street

Denver, Colorado 80257

(303) 844-3157

August 25, 2015

Chris Wolpert

Chief Deputy Clerk 

Mr. Jack David Robinson

Spies, Powers & Robinson, P.C. 

1660 Lincoln Street

Suite 2220

Denver, CO 80264-0000

RE: 14-1417, Endrew F., et al v. Douglas County School District

Dist/Ag docket: 1:12-CV-02620-LTB

Dear Counsel: 

Enclosed is a copy of the opinion of the court issued today in this matter. The court has 

entered judgment on the docket pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. Rule 36.

Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. Rule 40, any petition for rehearing must be filed within 14 

days after entry of judgment. Please note, however, that if the appeal is a civil case in 

which the United States or its officer or agency is a party, any petition for rehearing must 

be filed within 45 days after entry of judgment. Parties should consult both the Federal 

Rules and local rules of this court with regard to applicable standards and requirements. 

In particular, petitions for rehearing may not exceed 15 pages in length, and no answer is 

permitted unless the court enters an order requiring a response. If requesting rehearing en 

banc, the requesting party must file 12 paper copies with the clerk, in addition to 

satisfying all Electronic Case Filing requirements. See Fed. R. App. P. Rules 35 and 40, 

and 10th Cir. R. 35 and 40 for further information governing petitions for rehearing.

Please contact this office if you have questions.

Sincerely,

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of the Court 

Appellate Case: 14-1417 Document: 01019480490 Date Filed: 08/25/2015 Page: 1 
2

cc: Robert Sherman Ross Jr.

EAS/sds

Appellate Case: 14-1417 Document: 01019480490 Date Filed: 08/25/2015 Page: 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7182

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EMERSON WADDELL SARTOR, II,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (7:05-cr-00128-H-1)

Submitted: August 26, 2009 Decided: September 3, 2009

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emerson Waddell Sartor, II, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Emerson Waddell Sartor, II, appeals the district
court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion

for a reduced sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. United States v. Sartor , No. 7:05—cr00128-H-1 (E.D.N.C. May 29, 2009). 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.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2182 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2182

 To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to permit 
                 the planting of chicory on base acres.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 9, 2004

   Mr. Nelson of Nebraska (for himself and Mr. Enzi) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                  Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to permit 
                 the planting of chicory on base acres.

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

SECTION 1. PLANTING OF CHICORY ON BASE ACRES.

    Section 1106(b)(3)(B) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7916(b)(3)(B)) is amended by striking ``and dry 
peas'' and inserting ``dry peas, and chicory''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

### **SECTION 302CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, David C. Reymann, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this annual reporton Form 10-K of Aether Systems, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annualreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annual report.

 

3. Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this annualreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this annual report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifyingofficers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14)for the registrant and we have:

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures  or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and proceduresas of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on suchevaluation; and;

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in the case of theannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;

 

5. The registrant’s other certifyingofficers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

 

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors anymaterial weaknesses in internal controls; and

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| /s/ David C.  Reymann     | March 15,  2004 |
|---------------------------|-----------------|
| *David C. Reymann*        |            |
| *Chief Financial Officer* |            |

 

1

----
Appeal Reinstated, Appeal Dismissed, and Memorandum Opinion filed March 

3, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-16-00376-CV

IRAJ S. JABBARY, ABC DENTISTRY PASADENA PA, ABC DENTISTRY 

OLD SPANISH TRAIL PLLC, ABC DENTISTRY WEST OREM PLLC, ET 

AL, Appellants

V.

SAEED ROHI DDS, EX REL STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 281st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2014-41707

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment signed May 6, 2016. On September 8, 2016, 

we abated this appeal because appellant ABC Dentistry, P.A. petitioned for 

voluntary bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern 

District of Texas, under cause number 16-34221. See Tex. R. App. P. 8.2. Through 

the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system, the court has 
2

learned that the bankruptcy case was closed February 22, 2019.

On January 23, 2020, this court issued an order stating that the appeal would 

be reinstated and dismissed for want of prosecution unless on or before February 12, 

2020, any party to the appeal filed a motion demonstrating good cause to retain this 

appeal. No motion or other response was filed.

Accordingly, we reinstate the appeal and dismiss it for want of prosecution.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Bourliot.
CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                          PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with the accompanying annual report on Amendment No. 2 to Form
10-KSB of Championlyte Holdings, Inc. for the period ended December 31, 2003,
David Goldberg, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of
Championlyte Holdings, Inc. hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the
best of my knowledge and belief, that:

1. Such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003,
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 such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period
ended December 31, 2003, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Championlyte Holdings, Inc.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Championlyte Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by it and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


CHAMPIONLYTE HOLDINGS, INC.

Dated: April 27, 2005

By: David Goldberg
    --------------------
Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
#### Tate *v.*Wymond.—On appeal.

*Monday, November*25

A SPECIALTY creditor madé a parol agreement with his principal debtor on the day the debt became due, without the surety’s consent, to give him (the principal debtor) the further time of one year for payment; and the time was given accordingly. *Held,*in an action of debt against the surety, that these facts were no defence to the suit. *Davey*v. *Prendergrass, 5*B. & Ald. 187.

*241In debt on a specialty, the plea of *nil*debet, though bad on general demurrer, is not a nüllity ; and a finaFjudgment for the plaintiff in such suit, there being a plea of *nil debet*unanswered, is erroneous.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED September 12, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-61123 Summary Calendar

FIFI DAVIS, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus
MARCUS GORDON; MIKE MOORE, Attorney General for the State of Mississippi; LAWRENCE KELLY, Respondents-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:02-CV-84-LN

-------------------- Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Fif i Davis, Mississippi prisoner # R6964, appeals the
district court’s dismissal for failure to pay the filing fee of her
28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition c hallenging her three convictions for uttering forgery. She contends that she was indigent and could not
afford the $5 filing fee, that her family had sent the funds, that
the court should have removed the funds from her prison account,
and that the court denied h er due process by dismissing the caseNo. 02-61123 -2- without holding a hearing. Davis has not shown that the district

court a bused its discretion in dismissing her habeas petition.

See Martinez v. Johnson , 104 F.3d 769, 771 (5th Cir. 1997). Consequently, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

www.nasa.gov

ACTIVIDAD PARA LAS VACACIONES DE INVIERNO:

Aeronaves de Palitos de Madera

INSTRUCCIONES:

1. Utilice la pinza de madera como el cuerpo de la aeronave.

2. Utilice los palitos de madera para crear las alas—únalos al cuerpo de la 

aeronave utilizando el pegamento.

3. Si construye un helicóptero, para hacer las hélices:forme una X utilizando 

dos palitos de madera.

4. Para formar las colas de las aeronaves, corte pedazos pequeños de 

palitos de madera. Tenga cuidado con este proceso. Para este proceso, 

si la actividad es realizada por un menor, se recomienda la supervisión 

de un adulto.

5. Si lo desea, decore su aeronave utilizando marcadores o pintura y 

agregue tiras de papel crepé.

MATERIALES:

• Pinzas de madera para ropa

(1 por aeroplano)

• Palitos de madera

• Navaja para manualidades

• Superficie de corte

• Pegamento 

(Se recomienda pistola de 

silicón pero el pegamento para 

madera puede ser utilizado)

• Pintura o marcadores

• Opcional: tiras de papel crepé
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of Water Pik Technologies, Inc. pertaining to the Executive Deferred Compensation Plan
(Form S-8 No. 333-30016 and post-effective amendments thereto), Broad-Based Stock Option Plan (Form S-8
No. 333-96447), 1999 Incentive Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-96449), Teledyne, Inc. 401(k) Plan (Form S-8
No. 333-96451 and post-effective amendments thereto), 1999 Non-Employee Director Stock Compensation Plan (Form S-8
No. 333-96455), Employee Stock Purchase Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-96457), Retirement Plan (Form S-8
No. 333-43962), 1999 Incentive Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-54318), Broad-Based Stock Option Plan (Form S-8
No. 333-54320), 1999 Non-Employee Director Stock Compensation Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-60236), Employee Stock Purchase Plan
(Form S-8 No. 333-60240), and 1999 Incentive Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-117442) of our report dated December 14, 2005,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Water Pik Technologies, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
September 30, 2005.

/s/
ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Woodland
Hills, California
December 14, 2005

---



QuickLinks
#### Walls *v.*The State.

*Thursday, December*11.

If a person, not being a traveller, carry a pistol concealed about his person, he is guilty of an indictable offence. His motive for carrying the pistol is immaterial.

ERROR to the *Union*Circuit Court.

Dewey, J.

— Indictment for carrying concealed weapons. One count charges the defendant below with carrying a dirk concealed about his person; and another alleges that he carried a pistol concealed in his pocket. Plea, not guilty; verdict, guilty and a fine of 20 dollars; judgment accordingly.

On the trial, evidence was given tending to prove that the defendant, not being a traveller, carried a six barrel pistol about his person, which he frequently exhibited as “ a kind of curiosity.” The defendant prayed the Court to instruct the *573jury, that if they believed from the evidence the defendant carried the pistol merely for the purpose of exhibiting it as curiosity, they should find him not guilty. The Court refused SO to instruct.

*J. B. Sleet/i*and *J. Ryman,*for the plaintiff.

*A. A. Hammond*and *S. Major,*for the state.

There was no error in that refusal. First, because for aught that appears of record, there might have been evidence enough to convict the defendant on the first count of the indictment, for carrying a concealed dirk. And, secondly, because if the defendant, not being a traveller, carried a pistol concealed, he was guilty of the offence prohibited by the statute. R. S. 1843, p. 982. His motive for or'intention in carrying it constituted no part of the offence, and, of course, had nothing to do with his guilt or innocence of the fact charged — that of carrying the pistol concealed. If he exhibited his pistol so frequently that it could not be said to be concealed, that was another matter; but it was a fact exclusively for the jury; and .was not embraced by the instruction asked for.

*Per Curiam.*—

The judgment is affirmed with costs.
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1969

To amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to add pears and cherries to 

the list of fruits and vegetables subject to regulation in a marketing 

order by grade, size, quality, or maturity, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 25, 2003

Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Ms. CANTWELL, and Mr. SMITH) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL

To amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to add pears 

and cherries to the list of fruits and vegetables subject 

to regulation in a marketing order by grade, size, quality, 

or maturity, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. PEAR AND CHERRY MARKETING ORDERS. 

4 Section 8e(a) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 

5 U.S.C. 608e–1(a)), reenacted with amendments by the Ag6 ricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, is amended 
2

•S 1969 IS 

1 in the first sentence by inserting after ‘‘apples,’’ the fol2 lowing: ‘‘pears, cherries,’’.

Æ
# COASTAL BANKING
COMPANY, INC.

# Exhibit 32

Section 1350 Certifications.

---

# Exhibit 32

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Executive
Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Coastal Banking Company, Inc. (the
Company), each certify that, to his or her knowledge on the date of this
certification:

| | 1. | The annual report of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed
               with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (the
               Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
               15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  | By: /s/ Randolph C. Kohn
Randolph C. KohnPresident and Chief Executive Officer
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  May 24, 2004

| |  | By: /s/ Charlie T. Lovering
Charlie T. LoveringChief Financial Officer
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  May 24, 2004