alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CHIEF JUSTICE

ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

GINA M. BENAVIDES

GREGORY T. PERKES

NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

DORIAN E. RAMIREZ NUECES COUNTY COURTH OUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FL OOR

CORPUS C HRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361

- 888

- 0416 (TEL)

361

- 888

- 0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLO OR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 7853 9

956

- 318

- 2405 (TEL)

956

- 318

- 2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa 

# Court of Appeals

Thirteenth District of Texas

April 28, 2015

Hon. J. Rolando Olvera Jr.

Presiding Judge, 5th Administrative

Judicial Region

200 N. Almond St.

Alice, TX 78332

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Hon. J. R. 'Bobby' Flores

139th District Court

Hidalgo County Courthouse

100 N. Closner

E dinburg, TX 78539

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Hon. Laura Hinojosa

District Clerk

100 N Closner

- 1st Floor

Edinburg, TX 78539

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL * Hon. Carlos E. Hernandez Jr.

Attorney at Law

200 E. Cano Street

Edinburg, TX 78539

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Hon. Tiffany Cox

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &

Stewart

2700 Weston Centre

1200 E. Pecan Street

San Antonio, TX 78205

- 1551

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Hon. Lawrence D. Smith

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &

Stewart

2700 Weston Centre

1220 East Pecan Stre et

San Antonio, TX 78205

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13

- 15

- 00160

- CV

Tr.Ct.No. C

- 6316

- 13

- C

Style: In re Brenntag Southwest, Inc.

Enclosed please find the opinion issued by the Court on this date.

Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER: ch

Enc.
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed July 30 , 2015 .

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 15
- 00903
- CV IN RE W.O.H., Relator Original Proceeding from the 304th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. JD
- 25148
- W 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Bridges, and Justice Stoddart

Opinion by Justice Stoddart Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus complaining tha t the district clerk has failed to transmit his “Motion to Rectify Jurisdiction of a Child and Proceed through Texas Family Code Section 54.02” and “Motion for Bench Warrant” to the juvenile court. The Court's power to issue a writ of mandamus is set fort h in section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code. Because the Dallas County District Clerk is not a judge, the district clerk falls within our mandamus jurisdiction only to the extent necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 22.2 21(a), (b) (West 2004) ( granting writ power to courts of appeals ). There is no pending or imminent appeal of relator’s conviction, which has become final . This Court does not have jurisdiction over any post

- conviction habeas corpus proceeding relator may seek to bring to collaterally attack his conviction. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P. A NN
. art. 11.05 (West 2005) (by whom writ may be granted). Therefore, any inaction by the district clerk does not impact our jurisdiction.– 2

–

We dismiss the petition for lack of jur isdiction.

150903F.P05 /Craig Stoddart/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
No. 5047.

(Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.)

#### SCOTT P. ASSENHEIMER vs. N. O. RAILWAY *&*LIGHT COMPANY.

J. C. Henriques for plaintiff and appellee.

Dart & Kernan for defendant and appellant.

DUFOUR, J.

This suit is to recover the value of an automobile alleged to have been destroyed in a collision with one of defendant’s cars, and attributed to the negligence of defendant’s employee.

The plaintiff, on the occasion in controversy, had, as he usually did .when about to take his family riding, brought his machine from the garage to the crossing near his residence.

The narrowness of the street was such that, in that position, the machine encroached and stood over more than a foot and a quarter of the track, and there was no other way of getting in.

The solution of the case depends upon the fact as to whether the automobile was still or was moving when the collision with the car took place.

The plaintiff and three disinterested witnesses say that the machine stood still, and was, or should have been, seen by the car crew from two squares off; one of the witnesses adds that .the motorneer was conversing with a passenger and did not look until too late to avoid the accident;

The defendant’s witnesses, with the single exception of one who was a passenger and whose testimony is not material, are all railroad employees who say that the automobile was moving toward the car and the col*501lision was due to this and not to any negligence on the part of the motorneer.

June 16, 1910.

The District Judge resolved the irreconcilable conflict against the defendant, and we shall not disturb his conclusions.

Judgment affirmed.
Party A: Mr. Zhu Xiaojun


 


Party B: CHINA
HGS REAL ESTATE, INC. (“The Company”)


 


Subject: Extension of
shareholder’s loan 


 


On June 28, 2011, the
Company entered into a one-year loan agreement (“USD Loan Agreement”) with Mr. Xiaojun Zhu, pursuant to which the Company
borrowed $1,810,000 from Mr. Xiaojun Zhu to make a capital injection into Shaanxi Guangsha Investment and Development Group Co.,
Ltd “Shaanxi HGS”), the Company’s subsidiary. The interest rate for the loan was 4% per annum.  On
July 19, 2012, Mr. Zhu Xiaojun and the Company agreed to extend the term of loan for an additional one year period, or until June
28, 2013with the same interest term.  


 


As of July 19th
, 2013, the Company and Mr Zhu Xiaojun agreed to extend the term of the loan for an additional one year with the same interest
term . 


 


This loan agreement has two copies, each party has one copy.


 


	Signed by   	/s/Zhu Xiaojun	 


Mr. Zhu Xiaojun


 


Sealed by


CHINA HGS REAL ESTATE,
INC


 


Signed on July 19, 2013
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 0 A0 68 9 . RI CKY SMI TH v . AUTO OW NER’S I NSURANCE COMPANY.

Au t o Own er’ s In s u ran ce Co m p an y s u ed Ri ck y Sm i t h

. Th e t ri al co u rt g ran t ed

s u m m ary ju d g m en t t o Au t o Own er’ s , award i n g $ 2 ,2 3 9 .3 6
, p l u s accru ed i nt eres t i n t h e

am ou n t $ 3 5 5

. 60
, p l u s c o s t s

. Sm i t h fi l ed th i s d i rect ap p eal

. W e, h o wev er, l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n

.

“ Al t h ou g h t h e g ran t o f a m o t i o n fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t i s i n g en eral d i rect l y
ap p eal ab l e, wh ere t h e am o u n t o f t h e ju d gm en t is [$ 1 0 ,0 0 0] o r les s , an ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal i s req u i red .” Li g h twer k S t u d i o s v. Do o r Un i t s o f Ga

. , 1 8 4 Ga. Ap p

. 1 48
, 1 4 9 (3 6 1 SE2 d 3 2) (1 9 8 7 ); s ee O C G A § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (6 ). As t h e t o t al ju d g m en t i n fav o r o f Au t o Own er’ s i s fo r l es s t h an $1 0 ,0 0 0, t h e en t ry o f s u m m ary ju d g m en t p ro vi des n o b as i s fo r a d i rect ap p eal i n t h i s c a s e. See Ca -S h a r , In c. v. McKes s o n Co r

p

. , 2 0 4 Ga. Ap p

. 8 6 5, 8 6 5-8 6 6 (4 2 0 SE2 d 8 1 0) (1 9 9 2). Becau s e Sm i th

was req u i red t o fi l e a d i s cret io nary ap p l i cat i o n , we l ack ju ri s di ct io n t o co n s i d er t h i s d i r e c t ap peal
, w hi ch i s h ereb y DISM ISSED. See H i l l v. R o s e El ect r i c Co

. , 2 2 0 Ga

. Ap p . 6 0 3 , 6 0 4 (4 6 9 SE2 d 8 4 4 ) (1 9 9 6 ).

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t if y t h a t th e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. December 04, 2019

12/04/2019
Exhibit 32

 

ITRONICS INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Itronics Inc. (the Company") on Form10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on November 19, 2003 (the "Report") each of the undersigned, in thecapacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto his knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; 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: November 18, 2003                       /S/JOHN W. WHITNEY
                                              JohnW. Whitney

                                              ChiefExecutive Officer

                                              ChiefFinancial Officer

 

30
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. NORM AN B R

UC E SPENC ER , a .k.a . Donova n R obe rt C arlton, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-30216

D.C . No. 1:12-c r-00054-PA M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Owe n M . Panne r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 25, 2014 ** B e fore : HAW K INS, TALLM AN, a nd NGUYEN, C i rc u it Judge s. Norm an B ruc e Spe nc e r a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to sente nc e him unde r the Arm e d C are e r C rim ina l Ac t (“ AC C A” ), 18 U.S.C . § 924(e ), to 188 m onths, following his guilty

# FIL ED JUN 26 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).ple a

c onvic tion for be ing a fe lon in posse ssion of a fire arm , in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 922(g)(1). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . Spe nc e r c o nte n ds tha

t A C C A’ s re sidua l c la

use , 18 U.S.C . § 924(e )(2)(B )(ii), is unc onstitutiona

l ly v a gue a s a

pplie d to his prior c onvic tion for a tte m pte d injury to a c hild. W e re vie w de novo whe the r a sta tute is unc onstitutiona

l ly va g ue . Se e Unite d State s v . Spe nc e r , 724 F.3d 1133, 1136 n.2 (9th C ir. 2013). As Spe nc e r a c knowle dge s, his a

rgum e nt is fore c lose d. S

e e id . at 1135-36, 1145-46 (c iting Syk e s v . Unite d State

s , 131 S. C t. 2267, 2277 (2011) a nd J a me s v . Unite d State

s , 550 U.S. 192, 210 n.6 (2007)). B e c a use the Supre m e C ourt ha s c onc lude d tha t the re sidua l c la

use is not unc onstitutiona lly va gue , se eid ., we de c line to a p ply the rule of le nity or the doc trine of c onstitutiona l a v oida nc e . Se eUnite d State

s v . Shill , 740 F.3d 1347, 1355 (9th C ir. 2014) (rule of le nity an d doc trine of c onstitutiona l avoida nc e are ina

pplic a b le whe n a

sta tute is not a

m biguous). AFFIRM E D .

1 3 - 3 0 2 1 6 2
[988 NE2d 1285, 966 NYS2d 773]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Earl Bell, Jr., Appellant.

Decided May 2, 2013

*916APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Alex Smith,*Middletown, for appellant.

*Francis D. Phillips, II, District Attorney,*Middletown *(Andrew R. Kass*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order modified by reducing defendant’s conviction of depraved indifference murder in the second degree to manslaughter in the second degree and remitting to County Court, Orange County, for resentencing and, as so modified, affirmed *(see People v Bussey,*19 NY3d 231 [2012]).

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Rivera.
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

**Consent of Independent Auditors**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Baldor Electric Company and affiliates of our report dated January 29, 2004 (except forNote B, as to which the date is March 12, 2004), included in the 2003 Annual Report to Shareholders of Baldor Electric Company and affiliates. 

 

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Baldor Electric Company and affiliates listed in Item 15(a). This schedule is the responsibility of theCompany’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presentsfairly in all material respects the information set forth therein. 

 

We alsoconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8, No. 33-16766) pertaining to the Baldor Electric Company 1987 Incentive Stock Plan, (Form S-8, No. 33-28239) pertaining to the Baldor Electric Company EmployeeSavings Plan, (Form S-8, No. 33-36421) pertaining to the Baldor Electric Company 1989 Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors, (Forms S-8, No. 33-59281, No. 33-60731, and No. 333-62331) pertaining to the Baldor Electric Company 1994 IncentiveStock Plan, (Form S-8, No. 333-33109) pertaining to the Baldor Electric Company 1996 Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors, (Form S-8, No. 333-33287) pertaining to the Baldor Electric Company Employees’ Profit Sharing and Savings Plan,and (Form S-8, No. 333-67474) pertaining to the Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors, of our report dated January 29, 2004 (except for Note B, as to which the date is March 12, 2004), with respect to the consolidated financial statements ofBaldor Electric Company and affiliates incorporated by reference and our report included in the preceding paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedule included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 3, 2004.

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

 

Fort Smith, Arkansas 

March 15, 2004
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Post-Effective Amendment to
Registration Statement No. 33-13901, and in Registration Statement Nos.
33-73696, 33-73698, 33-73700, 333-17349, 333-17351, 333-50356, 333-75388,
333-75390, 333-102070 and 333-102072 of Barr Laboratories, Inc. on Form S-8 of
our report dated November 30, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K/A of Barr Laboratories, Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2003.

                                    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Cincinnati, Ohio
August 29, 2003
Exhibit 4.1


 





 


Share
Certificate Certificate No. No. of Shares ALR TECHNOLOGIES SG PTE. LTD. (the “Company”) (Company Registration No.
202013739N) Incorporated in Singapore on 16/05/2020 under the Companies Act Cap. 50 REGISTERED OFFICE : 80 Robinson Road #02-00
Singapore 068898 This is to certify that is the Registered Holder of ORDINARY SHARE(S) each fully paid in ALR TECHNOLOGIES SG
PTE. LTD. Subject to the Constitution of the Company. Given under the Common Seal of the Company on. Director: Secretary: N.B.
Transfer of any Shares cannot be registered without the production of this Certificate
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of

JAMES KEVIN REED

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 2693 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

Board File No. C3-19-951

(Court of Appeals of Maryland, Misc. 

Docket AG No. 47, September Term, 

2019)

Attorney Registration No. 50075

(Out of State)

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of February, 2020, having indicated that he has no 

objection to the imposition of reciprocal discipline in this Commonwealth, James Kevin 

Reed is disbarred from the practice of law in this Commonwealth. He shall comply with 

all the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217.
AMENDMENT TO RESTRICTED STOCK AGREEMENT


 


Amendment (this “Amendment”)
dated as of July 12, 2013 to the Restricted Stock Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated May 16, 2012 by and between TG
Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company” or “TG”) and Sean A. Power (“Power”). All capitalized terms
not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given to them in the Agreement.


 


WHEREAS, on May 16, 2012 Power received
a grant of 350,000 restricted shares of TG common stock, $0.001 par value, and pursuant to the Agreement 87,500 of such shares
(the “Shares”) are set to vest upon the first date that the Company achieves a Market Capitalization of $300 million;


 


WHEREAS, the Company believes that it is
in its best interest to amend the vesting schedule in the Agreement; and


 


WHEREAS, the Company and Power have agreed
to amend the Agreement.


 


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing
and of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, the parties agree as follows:


 


1.            Amendments.


 


The vesting schedule on page 1
of the Agreement with regard to the Shares shall be amended by deleting the phrase “The first date that the Company achieves
a Market Capitalization (as defined herein) of $300 million” and inserting the phrase “The later to occur of: (a) the
first date that the Company achieves a Market Capitalization (as defined herein) target of $300 million and (b) December 15, 2014”.


 


2.            Effect
on the Agreement.


 


(a)          Upon
the effectiveness of this Amendment, each reference in the Agreement to “this Agreement” “hereunder”, “hereof”,
“herein” or words of like import shall mean and be a reference to the Agreement as amended hereby.


 


(b)          Except
as expressly amended, the Agreement and all other documents and agreements executed and/or delivered in connection therewith, shall
remain in full force and effect.


 


3.            Governing
Law.


 


This Amendment shall be binding
upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns and shall be governed by and construed
in accordance with the laws of the State of New York. 


 


4.            Counterparts.



 


This Amendment may be executed
by the parties hereto in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which when taken together
shall constitute one and the same agreement.


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, TG Therapeutics, Inc.
and Sean A. Power have executed this Amendment to the Restricted Stock Agreement as of the date first written above.


 


	 	TG THERAPEUTICS, INC.
	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Michael S. Weiss
	 	 	Michael S. Weiss
	 	 	Chief Executive Officer
	 	 
	 	/s/ Sean A. Power
	 	Sean A. Power


 








    	- 2 -
##### 



EXECUTION COPY
 SEPARATION AGREEMENT
 Agreement Company Executive Effective Date
 Parties
 Entire Agreement Employment Agreement
 Cessation of Employment Termination Date
 Entitlements




---



##### 



Identified Parties
  provided
 Consulting Services
 Return of Company Property




---



##### 



Restrictive Covenants Restrictive Covenants
 Non-disparagement and Cooperation
  Dispute Proceedings




---



##### 



Indemnification
 Availability of Relief
   Miscellaneous
 Notices




---



##### 



Successors
 Taxes
 Severability
 Non-Admission
 No Mitigation




---



##### 



Governing Law/Venue
 Counterparts




---



##### 



BKF CAPITAL GROUP INC.By:

/s/ Marvin OlshanName:
    Marvin OlshanTitle:
    Chairman, Board of Directors/s/ John C. SicilianoJohn C. Siciliano




---



##### 



BKF CAPITAL, INC.
  
 Re: Identified Parties
  Company Separation Agreement
  Sincerely,/s/ Marvin OlshanName:
    Marvin OlshanTitle:
    Chairman, Board of Directors Accepted and Agreed to:By:

/s/ John C. SicilianoJohn Siciliano
Exhibit 10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT #1 TO 
 RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT 

This AMENDMENT #1 TO RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of
July 16, 2013, by and between Craig T. Bouchard (“Grantee”), and Signature Group Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Corporation”). 

WHEREAS, in connection with his commencement of employment as an executive of the Corporation, Grantee received a restricted stock
award of 250,000 shares of the Corporation’s common stock (the “Common Stock”) under the Amended and Restated Signature Group Holdings, Inc. 2006 Performance Incentive Plan (the “Plan”).

 WHEREAS, the restricted stock award is evidenced by a Restricted Stock Award Agreement dated June 5, 2013
(collectively, the “Award Agreement”). 
 WHEREAS, the Corporation and Grantee desire to amend
the Award Agreement. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the mutual promises, terms,
provisions and conditions set forth in this Amendment, the parties hereby agree as follows: 
 1. Effective as of the date of
this Amendment, the second sentence of Section 7 of the Award Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 
 “The transfer restrictions in the preceding sentence shall not apply to (a) transfers to the Corporation, (b) transfers by will or the laws of descent and distribution or (c) transfers
to one or more “family members” (as defined in the General Instructions to Form S-8) approved in advance by the Administrator on such terms and conditions as the Administrator determines to be appropriate.” 

2. Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the Award Agreement shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its
terms. From and after the execution of this Amendment, the Award Agreement and this Amendment shall be read together as a single, integrated agreement. 
 3. This Amendment shall be construed, performed and enforced in accordance with, and governed by the laws of the State of Nevada without regard to conflict of laws principles thereunder. 

4. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall
constitute the same instrument. 
 Remainder of page intentionally left blank. 

  
 1 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment #1 to Restricted
Stock Award Agreement as of the date first written above. 
  

			
	SIGNATURE GROUP HOLDINGS, INC.,
	a Nevada corporation
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Chris Manderson

	Print Name:	 	 Chris Manderson

	Its:	 	 Exec. VP & General Counsel

	
	GRANTEE
	
	 /s/ Craig T. Bouchard

	Craig T. Bouchard



  
 2
Exhibit 32.1  Certification  Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned hereby certifies that:  (1) I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P. (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;  (2) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (3) The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P.  By:Inland Real Estate Investment CorporationGeneral PartnerBy:/s/ Brenda G. GujralName:Brenda G. GujralTitle:President of the General Partner andprincipal executive officer of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P.Date:November 13, 2009