alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.34



                        FIRST AMENDMENT TO EXTEND LEASE
                       DATED NOVEMBER 23, 1994 ("LEASE")
                         BY AND BETWEEN BRUCE K. HOYT
                          AND GEERLINGS & WADE, INC.



Whereas the Lease of November 23, 1994 by and between Bruce K. Hoyt (the
"Lessor") and Geerlings & Wade, Inc. (the "Lessee") has an expiration of
February 28, 1998 (the "Lease") and;

Whereas Lessor and Lessee desire to extend the term of this Lease for an
additional thirty-six (36) months.

Now therefore, in consideration of rents reserved and of the covenants and
agreements herein set forth, it is agreed that the Lease be hereby amended from
and after the date hereof as follows:

1. The Lease shall terminate on February 28, 2001.

2. Lessee shall pay to Lessor as Base Rent $1,700.00 per month.

3. Lessor shall, at Lessor's sole cost, replace the inoperative HVAC rooftop
   unit with a new unit.

4. Paragraph 11.1(1) shall be replaced with "Tenant shall fail to pay when
   due any installment of rent or any other payment required pursuant to this
   Lease and the failure is not cured within five (5) days after written notice
   to Tenant.

5. "In the third sentence of Paragraph 14.5 replace "...shall be deemed
   delivered (whether or not actually received) when deposited in" with
   "...shall be deemed delivered when received by the person to whom the notice
   is addressed and sent via.

6. "In Paragraph 14.7 strike the word "personally" and the sentence "In the
   event any representation or warranty is false, all persons who execute this
   Lease shall be liable, individually, as Tenant.

7. "All other terms and conditions of the Lease dated November 23, 1994 shall
   remain unchanged.


Agreed and acknowledge this 18th day of March 1998:


LESSEE:                               LESSOR:

Geerlings & Wade, Inc.

By: /s/ Jay L. Essa                   By: /s/ Bruce K. Hoyt
   ----------------------------          -----------------------------
    Jay L. Essa                           Bruce K. Hoyt
    President
#### Sturgeon *v.*The State.

Where an offence is created by statute, and a specific remedy prescribed, that remedy alone can'be pursued.

ERROR to the *Crawford*Circuit Court.; — Indictment for retailing spirituous liquors without license. Plea, not guilty. Verdict and judgment against the defendant below.

Dewey, for the plaintiff.

Blackford, J.

The statute of 1817, by authority of which this prosecution was instituted, declares, that for every offence against its provisions, the offender shall pay three dollars; and that all fines imposed by virtue of this act, shall be collected by justices of the peace, in the proper townships. Therefore, the offence charged was not indictable, and the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction of the case (1).

Per *Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed.

(1)

 Where a statute makes unlawful that which was lawful before, and appoints a *specific*remedy, that remedy must be pursued and no other. But if the offence were before punishable at common law,. then the particular remedy given by statute is cumulative, and in such case, either the statutory or common law remedy may be pursued. *Rex*v. *Robinson,*2 Burr. 799. — 1 Will. Saund. 135, note 4. Ibid. 250, e, note 3.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"First Spacewalk on the International Space Station","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"u1Vjb3mCjC\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/first-spacewalk-international-space-station\/\">First Spacewalk on the International Space Station<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/first-spacewalk-international-space-station\/embed\/#?secret=u1Vjb3mCjC\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“First Spacewalk on the International Space Station” — NASA\" data-secret=\"u1Vjb3mCjC\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/sts088-702-024-1.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":601}
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
RIGHTS AGREEMENT

This Amendment No. 1 (this “Amendment”) to the Rights Agreement dated as of May 5, 2000 (the “Agreement”) is made as of November __, 2002, by and among Structural Proteomics, Inc., a New Jersey corporation (“SP”), Richard Fine, Boris Klebansky and Arnold Hagler (collectively, the “Founders”) and Discovery Partners International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“DPI”).

RECITALS

WHEREAS, SP, the Founders and DPI are parties to the Agreement;

WHEREAS, concurrently herewith, each of the Founders has entered into separate stock purchase arrangements with DPI pursuant to which DPI will purchase from the Founders all of the outstanding capital stock of SP not currently held by DPI; and 

WHEREAS, SP, the Founders and DPI desire to amend the Agreement as set forth below.

AGREEMENT

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, representations, warranties, covenants and conditions set forth in this Amendment and the Agreement, the parties hereby agree as follows:

1.        Sections Amended. Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Agreement are hereby deleted in their entirety. 

2.        Effect of Amendment. Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect. 

3.        Miscellaneous Provisions.

(a)    Governing Law. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of California as applied to agreements among California residents entered into and to be performed entirely within California.

(c)    Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]



 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be properly executed and delivered as of the date first above written.

 

	  
 	  
 	  
 	 STRUCTURAL PROTEOMICS, INC.
 
	  
 	  
 	 
 
 
 	  
 	 By: 
 	 
 
 
 
	  
 	  
 	  
 	  
 	  
 	 
 
	  
 	  
 	  
 	  
 	 Name: 
 	  
 
	  
 	  
 	  
 	  
 	  
 	 
 
	  
 	  
 	  
 	  
 	 Title: 
 	  
 
	  
 	  
 	  
 	  
 	  
 	 
 


 

	  
 	  
 	  
 	 DISCOVERY PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL,
 INC.
 
	  
 	  
 	 
 
 
 	  
 	 By: 
 	 
 
 
 
	  
 	  
 	  
 	  
 	  
 	 
 
	  
 	  
 	  
 	  
 	 Name: 
 	  
 
	  
 	  
 	  
 	  
 	  
 	 
 
	  
 	  
 	  
 	  
 	 Title: 
 	  
 
	  
 	  
 	  
 	  
 	  
 	 
 


 

	  
 	  
 	  
 	  
 
	  
 	  
 	  
 	  
 
	  
 	  
 	  
 	 
 
	  
 	  
 	  
 	 RICHARD FINE
 


 

	  
 	  
 	  
 	  
 
	  
 	  
 	  
 	  
 
	  
 	  
 	  
 	 
 
	  
 	  
 	  
 	 BORIS KLEBANSKY
 


 

	  
 	  
 	  
 	  
 
	  
 	  
 	  
 	  
 
	  
 	  
 	  
 	 
 
	  
 	  
 	  
 	 ARNOLD HAGLER
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 207 (Monday, October 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 63918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25474]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than November 21, 2014.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Nadine Wallman, Vice 
President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566:
    1. Citizens National Corporation, Paintsville, Kentucky; to acquire 
100 percent of the voting shares of Peoples Security Bancorp, Inc., and 
thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Peoples Security Bank of 
Louisa, both in Louisa, Kentucky.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Gerald C. Tsai, Director, 
Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, 
California 94105-1579:
    1. FNB Bancorp, South San Francisco, California; to acquire 100 
percent of the voting shares of Valley Community Bank, Pleasanton, 
California.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 22, 
2014.
Michael J. Lewandowski,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2014-25474 Filed 10-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
#### Jamal O. FARAH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-71776.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Feb. 15, 2005.

Decided March 8, 2005.

Frank M. Tse, Law Office of Frank M.K. Tse, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, William C. Peachey, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI and TROTT, Circuit Judges, and SAND,** Senior Judge.

*

 Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 The Honorable Leonard B. Sand, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Petitioner Jamal Farah challenges the Board of Immigration Appeal’s affirmance without opinion of the immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding and denial of asylum relief, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against *822Torture. Farah’s claims fail because substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s determination that Farah was not credible. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003) (explaining the standard for reviewing credibility findings).

PETITION DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
1

The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jerry

W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1290

___________

Robert Davis, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, *

Social Security Administration, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 19, 2004 

Filed: December 1, 2004 

___________

Before RILEY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robert Davis appeals the district court’s1

 decision upholding the

Commissioner’s denial of supplemental security income benefits after a hearing

before an administrative law judge (ALJ) and after the Appeals Council denied

review. Having reviewed the record, we find that the Commissioner’s decision is

supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Hilkemeyer v.
-2-

Barnhart, 380 F.3d 441, 445 (8th Cir. 2004). In particular, the ALJ considered

Davis’s impairments in combination, made sufficient credibility findings, considered

the side effects of his medications, fully developed the record, adopted a hypothetical

posed to the vocational expert which included all of Davis’s limitations that were

supported by the record, and considered the disability findings of the Veteran’s

Administration in making his decision.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

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

                  In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form
         10-Q of Franklin Finance Corporation for the quarter ended September
         30, 2002, I, David L. Shelp, President, Chief Executive Officer and
         Chief Financial Officer of Franklin Finance Corporation hereby certify
         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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Franklin
                           Finance Corporation for the quarter ended September
                           30, 2002, 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 Quarterly Report on
                           Form 10-Q of Franklin Finance Corporation for the
                           quarter ended September 30, 2002, fairly presents, in
                           all material respects, the financial condition and
                           results of operations of Franklin Finance
                           Corporation.

                           /s/ David L. Shelp
                           -------------------------------------------------
November 13, 2002          David L. Shelp
                           Director, President, Chief Executive Officer and
                           Chief Financial Officer
                           (Principal executive and principal financial officer)






                                       14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ryan Grimes,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-04621-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: January 5, 2018 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9551 Filed 01/09/18 Page 1 of 1
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NOVEMBER 21, 2013

NO. 03-11-00555-CR

Edwin Gus Schneider, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 26TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES FIELD AND ABOUSSIE*

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE ABOUSSIE

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being 

considered, it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error requiring reversal in the trial 

court’s judgments of conviction: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the 

Court that the trial court’s judgments of conviction are in all things affirmed; and it appearing 

that the appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, that no adjudication as to costs is made; 

and that this decision be certified below for observance.

*Before Marilyn Aboussie, Chief Justice (retired), Third Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment. 

See Tex. Gov’t Code § 74.003(b).
423 A.2d 1314

#### McGrorey et al., Appellants, v. Obermayer et al.

Argued March 21, 1979.

John J. O’Brien, Jr., for appellants; J. Bruce McRissock, for appellees.

Before PRICE, SPAETH and LIPEZ, JJ.

The judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

WHITNEY WHITMORE, individually and

on behalf of all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

REMEDY TEMPORARY SERVICES, 

INC. and MCKESSON SPECIALTY 

ARIZONA, INC. 

 Defendants. 

 Case No.: 15 cv 2161 SRB 

ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT OF 

DISMISSAL

The Parties’ Motion for Final Settlement Approval came before the Court on June 

12, 2017. Based on the pleadings, papers, and arguments of counsel, and good cause 

appearing therefore, the Court hereby grants the Motion in full. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED as follows: 

1. The Court finds that the Settlement, as set forth in the Settlement 

Agreement executed by the Parties, is a reasonable compromise of a bona fide dispute. 

2. The Court finds that the uncertainty and delay of litigation strongly support 

the adequacy of the Settlement Amount. 

3. The Settlement Agreement is HEREBY APPROVED in its entirety. 

4. The Court enters final judgment in this case. The Court hereby dismisses 

this matter with prejudice as to the Named Plaintiff and all opt-in Plaintiffs participating 

Case 2:15-cv-02161-SRB Document 95 Filed 06/15/17 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

in the settlement, in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this 

Final Approval Order. 

5. This Action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, with each party to 

bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs, except as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. 

The Court retains jurisdiction with respect to the implementation and enforcement of the 

terms of the Settlement Agreement. 

 Dated this 14th day of June, 2017. 

 

 

Case 2:15-cv-02161-SRB Document 95 Filed 06/15/17 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 528 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 528

 To authorize further appropriations for cleanup and repair of damages 
   to facilities of Yosemite National Park caused by heavy rains and 
              flooding in December 1996 and January 1997.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 1997

Mr. Doolittle (for himself and Mr. Radanovich) introduced the following 
         bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize further appropriations for cleanup and repair of damages 
   to facilities of Yosemite National Park caused by heavy rains and 
              flooding in December 1996 and January 1997.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Yosemite Restoration Act of 1997''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR CLEANUP AND REPAIR OF 
              YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK.

    (a) Authorization.--In addition to any other amounts authorized or 
available, there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
the Interior $178 million for cleanup and repair of damages to the 
facilities of Yosemite National Park caused by heavy rains and flooding 
in December 1996 and January 1997.
    (b) Use.--Amounts may be appropriated under this section for, among 
other activities, the following:
            (1) Repair of infrastructure vital to Yosemite National 
        Park operations, including roads, campgrounds, trails, and 
        other park facilities, both within the Park boundaries and 
        servicing the Park.
            (2) Repair and possible relocation of Park employee and 
        concessionaire housing, campgrounds, and other facilities 
        consistent with the Yosemite Master Plan.
            (3) Repair, maintenance, and opening of Tioga Pass Road.
            (4) Repair and expeditious opening of California State 
        highways 120, 140, and 41.
            (5) Any other repair, restoration, or enhancement that is 
        considered necessary for the expeditious and complete opening 
        of Yosemite National Park.
                                 <all>
```