alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 21  LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES*



|(a) | Bassett Furniture Industries of North Carolina, LLC (North Carolina limited liability Corporation)
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(b) | The E.B. Malone Corporation (Delaware Corporation)
|--- | --------------------------------------------------



|(c) | Bassett Direct Stores, LLC (Virginia limited liability Corporation)
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------



|(d) | Bassett Direct NC, LLC (Virginia limited liability company)
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------



|(e) | Bassett Direct SC, LLC (Virginia limited liability company)
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------



|(f) | The Accessories Group, Inc. (Virginia Corporation)
|--- | --------------------------------------------------



|(g) | Bassett Industries Alternative Asset Fund, L.P. (99.8% ownership) (Delaware limited partnership) (1)
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(h) | LRG Furniture, LLC (Virginia limited liability company)
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------



|(i) | BDP, LC (Texas limited liability company)
|--- | -----------------------------------------



|(j) | BFD-Atlanta, LLC (Virginia limited liability company)
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------



|(k) | BD Boston, LLC (Virginia limited liability corporation)
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------



|(l) | BDU NY, LLC (Virginia limited liability company)
|--- | ------------------------------------------------



|* | All subsidiaries are wholly-owned unless otherwise noted.
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------

|(1) | Partnership was dissolved effective December 31, 2009.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00162-CV

Claire Duke

v.

American Homes 4 Rent Properties 

Eight, LLC, a Delaware Limited 

Liability Company

§

§

§

§

From County Court at Law No. 1

of Tarrant County (2015-002186-1)

September 24, 2015

Opinion by Justice Walker

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed as 

moot.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By __/s/ Sue Walker___________________

 Justice Sue Walker
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

§

THE STATE OF TEXAS, No. 08-18-00215-CR

§

Appellant, Appeal from the

§

V. 384th District Court

§

ALFRED CORRAL, of El Paso County, Texas

§

Appellee. (TC# 20170D02456)

§

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The State of Texas has filed a motion to dismiss its appeal pursuant to Rule 42.2(a). This 

rule permits an appellate court to dismiss a criminal appeal on the appellant's motion at any time 

before the court’s decision. TEX.R.APP.P. 42.2(a). We grant the motion and dismiss the State’s 

appeal.

February 5, 2019

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3621 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for an exclusion 

for assistance provided to participants in certain veterinary student loan 

repayment or forgiveness programs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 21, 2010 

Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. 

RISCH, Mr. BENNET, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. FRANKEN, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. 

DORGAN, Mr. JOHANNS, and Mr. HARKIN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

for an exclusion for assistance provided to participants 

in certain veterinary student loan repayment or forgiveness programs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterinary Medicine 

5 Loan Repayment Program Enhancement Act’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3621 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FOR ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TO PAR2 TICIPANTS IN CERTAIN VETERINARY STU3 DENT LOAN REPAYMENT OR FORGIVENESS 

4 PROGRAMS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (4) of section 108(f) 

6 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to pay7 ments under National Health Service Corps loan repay8 ment program and certain State loan repayment pro9 grams) is amended— 

10 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ after ‘‘such Act,’’, 

11 (2) by striking ‘‘such State).’’ and inserting 

12 ‘‘such State), under section 1415A of the National 

13 Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Pol14 icy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3151a), or under any 

15 other State loan repayment or loan forgiveness pro16 gram that is intended to provide for increased access 

17 to veterinary services in such State.’’, and 

18 (3) by striking ‘‘STATE’’ in the heading and in19 serting ‘‘OTHER’’. 

20 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

21 this section shall apply to amounts received by an indi22 vidual in taxable years beginning after December 31, 

23 2009. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 6663]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681                         *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note*et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Watteau, Music, and Theater,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported                               ( print page 28587)                            pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY, from on or about September 21, 2009, until on or about November 29, 2009, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/453-8048). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

Dated: June 10, 2009.

C. Miller Crouch,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. E9-14124 Filed 6-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 Nos. 2-96104, 33-13278, 33-27498, 33-45699, 33-58340, 33-50395,
33-51615, 33-65301, 333-08549, 333-15089, 333-15089-01 through -04, and Form S-4
Nos. 333-22733 and 333-22733-01, and Form S-8 Nos. 2-67517, 2-97972, 33-20693,
33-21564, 33-41014, 33-52329, 33-54971, 333-12181 and 333-19963) and in the
related Prospectuses of Bankers Trust New York Corporation of our report dated
January 23, 1997 except for Note 28, as to which the date is March 6, 1997, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of Bankers Trust New York
Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 1996.


                                        /S/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                        ---------------------------------
                                        Ernst & Young LLP


New York, New York
March 6, 1997
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3649 

To amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to 

provide for use of excess funds available under that Act to provide 

for certain benefits, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 26, 2010 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Mr. GOODWIN) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 

of 1977 to provide for use of excess funds available 

under that Act to provide for certain benefits, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Coal Accountability 

5 and Retired Employee Act of 2010’’ or the ‘‘CARE Act’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3649 IS

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND 

2 RECLAMATION ACT OF 1977. 

3 Section 402(i)(2) of the Surface Mining Control and 

4 Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1232(i)(2)) is 

5 amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘Subject to’’ and inserting the 

7 following: 

8 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to’’; and 

9 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(B) EXCESS AMOUNTS.— 

11 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Subject to para12 graph (3), and after all transfers referred 

13 to in paragraph (1) and subparagraph (A) 

14 of this paragraph have been made, any 

15 amounts remaining after the application of 

16 paragraph (3)(A) (without regard to this 

17 subparagraph) shall be transferred to the 

18 trustees of the 1974 UMWA Pension Plan 

19 and used solely to pay pension benefits re20 quired under such plan. 

21 ‘‘(ii) 1974 UMWA PENSION PLAN.—In 

22 this subparagraph, the term ‘1974 UMWA 

23 Pension Plan’ means a pension plan re24 ferred to in section 9701(a)(3) of the In25 ternal Revenue Code of 1986 but without 

26 regard to whether participation in such 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3649 IS

1 plan is limited to individuals who retired in 

2 1976 and thereafter.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
imma_ex102.htm


Exhibit 10.2


 



Loan Agreement


 



	Between: 	Morpheus Financial Corporation (“Lender”)
	 	 
	

And:

	

Interactive Multi-Media Auction Corporation (“IMMAC”), (“Borrower”)







 


TERMS OF LOAN


 



	BORROWER	 IMMAC
	 	 
	LENDER	Morpheus Financial Corporation
	 	 
	AMOUNT	Up to a Maximum of $15,000 CAD
	 	 
	INTEREST	Non-Interest Bearing
	 	 
	INVESTMENT	Unsecured Non-Recourse Loan
	 	 
	CLOSING	$7,500 at or before October 15, 2012
	 	Balance on or before April 31, 2013
	 	 
	

LOAN RE-PAYMENT DATE

	

It is understood the loan will be paid in its entirety of principal no later than October 31, 2017 unless otherwise agreed.







 


Electronically Signed and dated for this day of the 13th day of July 2012 by:












Morpheus Financial Corporation


(“Lender”)







/MC/


Managing Director












IMMAC


(“Borrower”)







/AM/


President
#### Altshuler Shaham Provident Funds, Ltd., Appellant, v GML Tower, LLC, et al., Defendants, and The Pike Company, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Submitted July 22, 2013;

decided September 3, 2013

Motion for clarification or reargument denied with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements [see 21 NY3d 352 (2013)].

Judge Abdus-Salaam taking no part.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-09-344-CV

IN RE BUFORD SCOTT, JR.  	RELATOR

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

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency stay and is of the opinion that relief should be denied.  Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency stay are denied.

	Relator shall pay all costs of this original proceeding, for which let execution issue.

								BVIBIOB MCCOY

PER CURIAM								JUSTICE

PANEL:  MCCOY, LIVINGSTON, and MEIER, JJ.

MEIER, J. dissents without opinion.

DELIVERED:  November 245, 2009
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-50296

RAYMOND DESCH,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

RICHARD WHEATLEY, SR., Individually and

As Representative of 7701 Wurzbach Tower

Council of Co-Owners, Incorporated;

KENNETH SHANNON, Individually, and

as Representative of 7701 Wurzbach Tower

Council of Co-Owners, Incorporated;

7701 WURZBACH TOWER; DELORES ANN

MOSELEY,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No 5:08-CV-922

Before GARWOOD, GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

The judgment of the district court is affirmed, essentially for the reasons

stated in the January 19, 2010 Memorandum and Recommendation of the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 7, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-50296 Document: 00511438247 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/07/2011
No. 10-50296

United States Magistrate Judge, accepted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), by

the District Court in its March 18, 2010 judgment.

AFFIRMED

2

Case: 10-50296 Document: 00511438247 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/07/2011
Order entered May 27, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 22 - 00368 - CV No. 05 - 22 - 00369 - CV No. 05 - 22 - 00378 - CV IN RE HOWARD HOLLAND , R elat or O rigi nal Proceedings from the 42 2nd Judicial District Court

Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 31608 - 422 , 31609 - 422 & 31610 - 422 O RDER Before Justices Myers, Nowell, and Goldstein Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE
#### REED v. TURNER.

No. 1439.

District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

July 10, 1941.

Thomas J. Minnick, Jr., of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Kenneth Souser, of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.

The complaint sets up two claims against the defendant, who was a stockholder in a defunct national bank, the first upon a stock assessment and the second upon a promissory note.

As to the first, there is no defense asserted, and the attempt to put the plaintiff to proof as to certain facts material to his claim are obviously not in good faith. For example, for a defendant who is a stockholder in a bank which also holds his note to aver that he is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments that the bank suspended payment in 1933, never reopened, and is in the hands of a receiver, is patently false. This Court has emphatically disapproved the practice of attorneys making use of the pro forma denials authorized by the new Rules, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, where the matter is one of common knowledge or one as to which the party can inform himself with the slightest effort. The effect and purpose is merely to delay justice.

As to the claim on the note; the answer states that the note was given without consideration. Under the simplified system of pleading established by the new Rules, I believe that this sufficiently raises the issue, and that I cannot enter judgment on the pleadings. The case on this point invites a motion for summary judgment.

As to the set-off claimed by reason of the fact that the plaintiff has paid interest on the note over a period of six years to a total amount in excess of the stock assessment, the allegations are insufficient to entitle the defendant to have these payments set off against his liability on the stock assessment. Rule 9(b) provides that in all averments of mistake the circumstances constituting the mistake shall be stated with particularity. There is no attempt to comply with this rule. Consequently the claim for set-off will be disregarded in this proceeding.

Judgment may be entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the amount of $1,500 with interest from November 5, 1934. As to the balance of the claim, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied.
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment to the Employment
Agreement (the “Employment Agreement”), effective as of August 1, 2010, by and between Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and David Bar-Or, M.D. (the “Executive”) is made as of
July 15, 2013 (“Amendment Date”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive (together the
“Parties”) entered into the Employment Agreement; 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to extend
the term of the Employment Agreement through July 31, 2014; and 
 WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to modify the
Employment Agreement. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows: 

1. The first sentence of Section 1 of the Employment Agreement shall be replaced in its entirety with the following sentence:

 “The Company hereby agrees to employ Employee and Employee hereby accepts such employment with the Company for the period
of 48 months beginning on the Effective Date.” 
 2. All other provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect. 
 3. In connection with the Amendment and subject to the approval of the Compensation Committee of the
Company, the Company hereby agrees to grant to the Executive an option to purchase 300,000 shares of the Company’s Common Stock, 150,000 shares of which will vest on the date of grant and 150,000 shares of which will vest on the one year
anniversary of the date of grant. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby have executed this Amendment as of the
Amendment Date written above. 
  

			
	AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
	
	 /s/ Michael Macaluso

	By:	 	Michael Macaluso
	Its:	 	CEO
	
	DAVID BAR-OR, M.D.
	
	 /s/ David Bar-Or
 David Bar-Or, M.D.
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders

and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions

of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 4/16/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

BILLY EUGENE MARSHALL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LARRY FIELDS, GARY D.

MAYNARD, Warden; ANITA

TRAMMEL, MICHAEL CRAIN, JERRY

RICHARD, DELORES RAMSEY;

SECURITY MAJOR VIEUX, DARRELL

EPPERLY, BOBBY BOONE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Nos. 95-5212 & 95-5266

(D. Ct. No. 94-C-1069-B)

(N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

This appeal is from an order of the district court dismissing pro se appellant’s civil
- 2 -

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that his constitutional rights

were violated during administrative disciplinary procedures that are alleged to have

occurred in 1991 and 1992. Appellant appeals on the grounds that the district court erred

in finding that appellant’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm.

Construing appellant’s complaint and all of the pleadings filed on appeal liberally,

as we must, appellant alleges that appellees violated his constitutional rights through a

series of disciplinary actions and proceedings that occurred during the years 1991 and

1992. In this appeal, appellant alleges that the district court erred in finding that the

statute of limitations had run because the collateral consequences of the disciplinary

actions taken at that time continue to impact appellant. We have reviewed appellant

Marshall’s brief, the pleadings, and the district court’s order, as well as the entire record

on appeal. We agree with the district court that the applicable statute of limitations is the

Oklahoma statute of limitation for personal injury actions, which is two years. Based

upon our review of this record, we find no error in the determination of the district court

that all of the actions alleged by appellant occurred outside the two-year statute of

limitations period and are therefore barred. We AFFIRM the dismissal of the action. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Deanell Reece Tacha

Circuit Judge
ex10_1.htm




 


EXHIBIT 10.1


 







Summary of Purchase and Sale Agreement


Dated June 16, 2013







Between Achidatex Nazareth Elite (1977) Ltd. (“Seller”) and A.Tzedef Hashkaot Ltd. and Dash Shivuk Ve’Yazamut M.A Ltd. (“Purchasers”).







The Seller warrants and represents that, subject to the disclaimers written in this agreements, it is the owner of all the rights to the property known as lot No. 1 in the detailed program No. 4028/c in section 122 (portion of) section 22884, and relates to a real estate property of approximately 16,380 square meters located in the Northern Industrial Zone of Beit Shean, Israel (the “Property”).







The Purchasers warrant and represent that they have seen and checked the property, and subject to the accuracy of the Seller’s representation, they deemed the Property to be fit for their needs and are purchasing the Property on an As Is basis. The Purchasers hereby waive any claim against the Seller regarding the condition of the property, except with respect to a hidden flaw which the Seller known of and did not disclose.







The Seller hereby sells its entire rights in the property and the Purchasers buy these rights from the Seller. The Seller will continue its industrial activities subject to a lease agreement entered into by the parties together with this agreement.







The total consideration for the Property is NIS 9 million plus VAT. Out of the total consideration, NIS 675,000 will be paid to the tax authorities, NIS 7.2 million will be paid to the banks to cover the Seller’s mortgages and the balance of NIS 1.125 million will be paid to the Seller.







The parties agreed that, in addition to any remedy available by law, for any material breach of the agreement, the breaching party shall pay the other party liquidated damages equal to 10% of the total compensation value.