alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Second AMENDMENT TO LEASE
                    EARLY POSSESSION AGREEMENT

That certain lease dated June 10, 1991, by and between Petula Associates Ltd., 
and Koll Woodside Associates, Landlord, and Sequent Computer Systems, Inc., 
Tenant, for the premises located at 15275 SW Koll Parkway, Beaverton, Oregon, 
97006, Building 3, Units A, B, C, D, and E, is amended this 1st day of March, 
1997 solely as hereinafter described.



     Effective the lst day of APRIL, 1997, the portions of the Lease as 
numbered below shall be amended to read as follows:

l.e. 	PREMISES AREA:

      Tenant shall occupy the expansion premises, Unit C, consisting of 
      6,238 square feet, effective April 1, 1997.  Total Amended Premises 
      Area shall be 25,653 square feet as of this date.  Landlord and Tenant 
      agree that all the terms and conditions of the Lease are to be in full 
      force and effect as of the date of Tenant's possession of the 
      premises.

1.g.	PREMISES PERCENT OF PROJECT: 19.58%

1.j.	RENT ADJUSTMENT - Effective Date of Rent Increase

	        04/01/97 - 12/31/97       	$ 18,403
        	01/01/98 - 05/31/98         	22,257
	        06/01/98 - 05/31/01         	23,509
        	06/01/01 - 05/31/03          25,025



All other terms and conditions of the above described Lease shall remain in 
full force and effect.


Landlord:	    PETULA ASSOCIATES, LTD.,, an Iowa Corporation and 
              KOLL WOODSIDE ASSOCIATES, a California general partnership


              By:  /s/Kurt Schaeffer

              Date:


Tenant:	      SEQUENT COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC.


              By:  /s/Bob Witt

              Date:  3/20/97
(October 12, 2006)

#### In the Matter of Arthur M. Kahn, an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.

[821 NYS2d 768]

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1975. He maintains an office for the practice of law in the Town of Woodstock, Ulster County.

Petitioner moves for an order suspending respondent from practice pending consideration of disciplinary charges against him upon the ground that he is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest *(see*22 NYCRR 806.4 [f]). Petitioner has filed a petition of charges alleging that respondent converted client funds and is guilty of other professional misconduct.

In support of its motion, petitioner cites respondent’s admissions to a pattern of substantial conversion of client funds. Respondent has made the admissions in an affirmation that he submitted in reply to a client complaint, in reply to petitioner’s motion and during his testimony at an examination under oath conducted by petitioner. It appears that respondent retains the means and motive for continuing his conversions.

We find that respondent is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest and we therefore grant petitioner’s motion and suspend respondent from the practice of law pending disposition of the petition of charges *(see e.g. Matter of DiStefano,*21 AD3d 640 [2005]).

*1041Mercure, J.E, Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ. concur.

Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is suspended from the practice of law, effective upon service on respondent of this decision and order and until further order of this Court; and it is further ordered that respondent, for the period of suspension, is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; and respondent is forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority, or to give to another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice with relation thereto; and it is further ordered that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court’s rules regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys *(see*22 NYCRR 806.9).
Exhibit
32.3





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of BreitBurn Energy Partners L.P (the
“Partnership”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, James G. Jackson, Chief Financial Officer of BreitBurn GP, LLC, the general
partner of the Partnership, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
my knowledge:





(1) 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 results of operations of the
Partnership.





/s/ JAMES G. JACKSONJames
      G. JacksonChief
      Financial Officer of BreitBurn GP, LLCDated:  November
      19, 2009
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/     Earl W. PowellEARL W. POWELLInterim Chief Executive Officer
April 5, 2007
|   | • | the      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter      ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and      Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;      and |
|--------|---------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                                                                                           |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Date: November 14,      2008                                                         |   |   |
|                                                                                           |   |   |
| /s/    DR. BARRY W. KARLIN         |   |   |
| Dr. Barry W.      Karlin                                                             |   |   |
| Chairman      and Chief Executive Officer                                                      |   |   |
| (Principal      Executive Officer)                                                             |   |   |
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MICHAEL DANIEL CUCUTA,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 

 State.

 

§

§

§

 

§

§

§ 

 

§

'

'

No. 08-15-00028-CR

Appeal from the

213th District Court

of Tarrant County, Texas

(TC# 1371063R)

 O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s third motion for extension of time to file the brief 

until August 18, 2015. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE 

APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Blake R. Burns, the Appellant’s Attorney, prepare 

the Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before August 18, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of July, 2015.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARLENE SUYAPA VELASQUEZ

BONILLA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-73900

Agency No. A095-740-876

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 19, 2012** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Marlene Suyapa Velasquez Bonilla, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions

pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing

her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her motion to reopen

FILED

DEC 28 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-73900

removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. 

Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the

petition for review. 

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Velasquez

Bonilla’s motion to reopen alleging exceptional circumstances, where it was not

submitted within 180 days of the IJ’s February 2, 2011, order, see 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (an alien seeking to reopen and rescind an in absentia removal

order based on exceptional circumstances must file the motion within 180 days),

and she failed to establish that she qualified for equitable tolling of the filing

deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 673, 678-80 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Velasquez Bonilla received proper notice of her removal hearing because

she was personally served a Notice to Appear, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a); see also

Flores-Chavez v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1150, 1156 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Current law

does not require that the Notice to Appear . . . be in any language other than

English.”), and the hearing notice was mailed to the most recent address she

provided, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229(c), 1229a(b)(5)(A).
3 11-73900

Velasquez Bonilla’s contention that, in making its decision, the agency

failed to consider all the relevant factors, is not supported by the record. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10** 

**- 7506** 

IBRAHIM ABDULLAH JABBAR ,

Plaintiff

- Appellant
,

v.

C. T. WOODY, Sheriff; CAPT. ROBINSON, Medical Dept. Sup.; DR. FURMAN, Head Doctor, RCJ; DEPUTY HARRIS, Mailroom; NURSE FORD, Medical Dept. RCJ; SGT. JONES, Grievance Coordinator; LT. COLONEL BURNETT, Jail Operations; MAJ. ROBINSON, Medical Dept. Supervisor; CAPT. MCREA, Jail Operations RCJ; CHAPLAIN PRUITT, Under Sheriff, RCJ
,

Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. T.S. Ellis, III
, Senior District Judge. ( 1:09

- cv

- 00246

- TSE

- TCB )

Submitted : December 20, 2011 Decided: December 22, 2011

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ , Circu it Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Ibrahim Abdullah Jabbar, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Douglas Lane, THOMPSON MCMULLAN PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CU RIAM:

Ibrahim Abdullah Jabbar appeals the district court ’ s

order s denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint. *

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. J abbar v. Woody , No. 1:09

- cv

- 00246

- TSE

- TCB (E.D. Va.

filed Sept. 29, 2009 & entered Sept. 30, 2009 ; filed Sept. 9,

2010 & entered Sept. 10, 2010) . We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

in the materi als before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* Jabbar filed an untimely notice of appeal. T his court subsequently r emanded this case to the district court for a determination as to whether Jabbar was entitled to a reo pening of the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)

. See Jabbar v. Woody , 432 F. App ’ x 224 (4th Cir. May 25, 20 11 ) (unpublished). Because the district court found that Jabbar is entitled to the benefit of Rule 4(a)(6), we address the appeal on the merits.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-14-00532-CR

Paul AGUILAR,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR5627

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED. 

SIGNED July 15, 2015.

_____________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Exhibit 10.12 Addendum to Commerzbank












ADDENDUM NO. 1 PERTAINING TO THE LOAN AGREMENT


(Cancellation of Joint Liability of REFU Elektronik GmbH)


The following Addendum pertaining to the Loan Agreement dated February 1st,  2011 for Cancellation of the Joint Liability of REFU Elektronik GmbH is hereby concluded between


RefuSol GmbH
Uracher Straße 91
D-72555 Metzingen


hereinafter referred to as “Borrower” - and


Commerzbank Aktiengesellschaft
Filiale Reutlingen
Unter den Linden 1
D-72762 Reutlingen


hereinafter referred to as “Bank” - 











1.     Joint Liability


1.1     The joint liability of REFU Elektronik GmbH, Marktstraße 185, D-72793 Pfullingen is hereby cancelled.


2.     Further Modifications


2.1     Item 3.4 of the Loan Agreement is modified as follows:


The Bank shall charge the Borrower a credit commission to the value of 0.25% p.a. on the loan amount upon closure of the contract. The credit commission is payable on the last day of every month.


3.     Other Agreements


All other agreements contained in the Loan Agreement dated February 1st,  2011, remain unchanged.


4.     Contractual obligations of the Bank / Implementation of the Addendum


The Bank is bound to the offer proposed in this Addendum until March 9th, 2011.


After signature by the Bank, the aforementioned Addendum to the Loan Agreement dated February 1st,  2011 shall only be implemented after the Bank has received the Borrower's  legally signed ordinal of the Addendum.




	
			
	Reutlingen, February 9, 2011
	 
	/s/ Commerzbank Aktiengesellschaft - Filiale Reutlingen

	(Place, Date)
	 
	


	 
	 
	 

	Metzingen, February 16, 2011
	 
	/s/ Refusol GmbH

	(Place, Date)
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsections (a) and (b) ofSection 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, chapter 63 oftitle 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of OsirisTherapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to the best ofeach officer’s knowledge that:

 

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterended March 31, 2010 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Qfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Date:  May 7, 2010 | /s/ C.  RANDAL MILLS                          |
|-------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                    | C.  Randal Mills, Ph.D.                       |
|                    | President &  Chief Executive Officer |
|                    |                                          |
| Date:  May 7, 2010 | /s/  PHILIP R. JACOBY, JR.                    |
|                    | Philip  R. Jacoby, Jr.                   |
|                    | Chief  Financial Officer                      |

 

This certification“accompanies” the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed withthe United States Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to beincorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the SecuritiesAct of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended(whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective ofany general incorporation language contained in such filing.

 

----
EXHIBIT 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-16428, 33-16463, 33-33338, 33-36836, 
33-39315, 33-39657, 33-40941, 33-40942, 33-63972, 33-63974, 33-59147 and 
33-59611) of Sequent Computer Systems, Inc. of our report dated January 24, 
1996 appearing on page 49 of the Annual Report to Shareholders which is 
incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.  We also consent to the 
incorporation by reference of our report on the Financial Statement Schedules,
which appears on page F-6 of this Form 10-K.



PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP


Portland, Oregon
January 27, 1995
July 23, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

BENEDICT EMESOWUM, Appellant

NO. 14-15-00513-CV V.

CHRISTMAS EVE MORGAN, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the order 

signed by the court below on June 9, 2015. Having considered the motion and 

found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, Benedict Emesowum.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
United States of America 

Railroad Retirement Board

Form Approved 

OMB No. 3220-0156

Employer’s 

Deemed Service Months 

Questionnaire

1. BA No.

2. Social Security No.

3. Name

4. Payroll ID No.

5. Date

Important Notices

The purpose of this form is to obtain information needed to determine whether the employee identified above can be credited 

with additional service months (deemed service months) in accordance with provisions of Section 3(i) of the Railroad 

Retirement Act (RRA). Our authority for requesting the information is Section 9 of the RRA. Reporting is mandatory under the 

law. Failure to report or the making of a false or fraudulent report can result in criminal prosecution or civil penalties, or both.

We estimate this form takes an average of 2 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing the instructions, getting the 

needed data, and reviewing the completed form. Federal agencies may not conduct or sponsor, and respondents are not 

required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB number. If you wish, send any comments 

regarding the accuracy of our estimate or any other aspect of this form, including suggestions for reducing the completion time, 

to Associate Chief Information Officer for Policy and Compliance, Railroad Retirement Board, , .

Employer Instructions

Check the information entered by the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) in Items 1-4, 6, and 8-9 for accuracy. If the 

information is incorrect, correct it and enter your response based on the corrected information. Explain the correction in the 

Remarks section. If the correction is to service months and/or compensation, you must also file Form BA-4, Report of 

Creditable Compensation Adjustments, and submit it to the RRB. If you have already filed the BA-4, enter the date filed in the 

Remarks below.

When you have completed the form and signed the Certification Statement below, mail it to U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 

Policy and Systems, Compensation and Employer Services Center, , or fax it to 312-751-7123.

6. For each month shown as month not worked, check the appropriate “Yes” or “No” box in Item 7 to indicate if the employee

had employment relationship in that month. Refer to the Employer Reporting Instructions for an explanation of deemed

service months.

Month(s) Not

Worked in

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

7. In Employment

Relationship?

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

8. Service Months Reported: 9. Tier II Compensation:

FOR 

RRB

USE

ABD:

Deemed Months:

10. REMARKS

11. CERTIFICATION STATEMENT

I understand that civil and criminal penalties can be imposed against me for false or fraudulent statements or for

withholding information to misrepresent a fact material to determining a right to payment under the Railroad Retirement

Act. I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the information which I have given is true, complete, and correct.

Signature of Certifying Officer Title of Certifying Officer

Telephone No.

( ) 

Facsimile No.

( ) 

Date

Form GL-99 (08-18)

SAMPLE
#### Extell 601 West 137th Street LLC, Respondent, v Vinegar Hill Baking Company and Restaurant LLC, Defendant, and Sven Christian Oehme, Appellant.

[976 NYS2d 388]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered November 28, 2012, which granted plaintiff’s summary judgment motion as to liability only on its 4th, 5th, 6th, 10th, 11th and 12th causes of action against defendant Sven Christian Oehme, also known as Sven L. Oehme, and directed an assessment of damages on those causes of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly determined that defendant Oehme did not present any viable affirmative defenses as to the issue of his liability as guarantor for the obligations of the lessee, defendant Vinegar Hill Baking Company and Restaurant LLC. Contrary to Oehme’s contentions, he was not relieved of his liability under the terms of the guaranty clauses. The amount owed will be determined at inquest. Concur — Friedman, J.E, Acosta, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2


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 this Quarterly Report of Red Trail Energy, LLC (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark E.
Klimpel, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:





1. 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 results of operations of the Company.





Dated:  November
16, 2009


/s/
      Mark E. KlimpelMark
      E. KlimpelChief
      Financial Officer
#### Steve Pappas et al., Respondents, v Steve Tzolis, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Submitted January 14, 2013;

decided March 21, 2013

Motion for reargument denied with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements *(see*20 NY3d 228 [2012]).

Judge Rivera taking no part.