alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.79

                 LEASE SCHEDULE NO. 1 TO MASTER LEASE AGREEMENT

     This Lease Schedule No. 1 is attached to and made a part of the Master
Lease Agreement ("Lease") between VIDEOTRONICS, INC., a Nevada corporation
("Lessor"), and SANTA FE HOTEL, INC., a Nevada corporation ("Lessee"), dated
September 16, 1996.

  1. Description of Equipment:  The Equipment listed on Attachment "A" to
     this Lease Schedule is added to the Equipment leased under the Lease and
     made subject to the provisions of the Lease.

  2. Commencement Date:  The Commencement Date for the Equipment leased under
     this Schedule will be the date the Equipment is delivered and accepted by
     the Lessee.

  3. Term:  The Term shall commence on the Commencement Date and shall
     continue for 36 consecutive months.

  4. The Basic Rent due each month during the Term for the Equipment
     described herein is as follows:

       a. The first payment under this Lease Schedule in an amount equal to
          $42,268.02 shall be due and payable on November 1, 1996.

       b. Payment of the Basic Rent in the amount of $42,268.02 shall be due on
          December 1, 1996 and on the first day of each month thereafter
          through and including October 1, 1999.

       c. In addition to the monthly Basic Rent due as set forth above, Lessee
          shall pay Lessor an amount equal to all taxes which may be imposed by
          any Federal, State or local authority from time to time.

  5. Security Deposit: Lessee shall pay to Lessor, due upon execution of this
     Schedule, a Security Deposit in the amount of $84,536.04.  The Security
     Deposit will be held by the Lessor for the Term of the Lease and will be
     returned to Lessee upon satisfactory completion of the terms and conditions
     of the Lease.

  6. All of the provisions of the Lease are incorporated by reference
     herein as if set forth fully herein.

Dated:  September 16, 1996


LESSEE:                                LESSOR:

SANTA FE HOTEL, INC.,                  VIDEOTRONICS, INC.,
a Nevada corporation                   a Nevada corporation

By: /s/ Thomas K. Land                 By: /s/ Neil Netley
   _______________________________        _________________________________ 

Its: Senior Vice President and CFO     Its: President
    ______________________________         _________________________________
36 Occupational Outlook Quarterly • Fall 2011

Quits versus layoffs

When workers and employers go their separate ways, 

who usually initiates the split? Data from the U.S. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) suggest that the answer 

has a lot to do with the overall state of the economy.

As the chart shows, when workers leave a job, it’s 

usually because they choose to quit. At least, that’s been 

the case over most of the 10 years BLS has been collecting such data.

But workers quit less, either by choice or by necessity, during the past two recessions. And the decline 

in quits associated with the most recent recession was 

especially dramatic: Quits fell by more than half. This 

dropoff was accompanied by an unprecedented spike in 

the number of involuntary separations—the first time 

since the data series began, in fact, that involuntary separations outnumbered quits.

Quits tend to increase when jobs are perceived as 

readily available and tend to fall when jobs are perceived 

as scarce. In the past decade, quits have been a lagging 

indicator at the start of a recovery.

In contrast, layoff and discharge levels fluctuate for a 

variety of reasons. Some, such as firings for cause, occur 

in all economic climates. But others, such as business 

closures, cost-cutting layoffs, and downsizing, are more 

closely associated with recessions.

These data are from the BLS Job Openings and 

Labor Turnover Survey. For more information, write to 

Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, 2 Massachusetts Ave., NE, Suite 4840, Washington, DC 20212; call 

(202) 691-5870; or visit the program’s website at 

www.bls.gov/jlt.

Quits versus layoffs and discharges, seasonally adjusted, December 2000 to June 2011

1,250

1,500

1,750

2,000

2,250

2,500

2,750

3,000

3,250

3,500

12/0004/0108/0112/0104/0208/0212/0204/0308/0312/0304/0408/0412/0404/0508/0512/0504/0608/0612/0604/0708/0712/0704/0808/0812/0804/0908/0912/0904/1008/1012/1004/11

Thousands

Quits Layoffs and discharges

Note: Shaded areas denote recessions as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and NBER.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1508

TOD JACK,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

VIRGINIA BUREAU OF INSURANCE,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. 

(2:15-cv-00101-MSD-LRL)

Submitted: July 23, 2015 Decided: July 27, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tod Jack, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tod Jack appeals the district court’s order dismissing under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012) his complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we 

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jack v. Va.

Bureau of Ins., 2:15-cv-00101-MSD-LRL (E.D. Va. filed on Apr. 14 

& entered on Apr. 15, 2015). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Richard L. Markee, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Vitamin Shoppe, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

Date: November 12, 2009



|    |  |                                     
|--- |  | ------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Richard L. Markee               
|    |  | Richard L. Markee                   
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer and Director
EXHIBIT 32



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 Quarterly Report of All American Pet Company, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Barry Schwartz, Chief
Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 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.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | Date: October 2, 2012  
| | -----------------------
| |                        
| | /S/ Barry Schwartz     
| | Barry Schwartz         
| | CEO and                
| | Principal Financial and
| | Accounting Officer
#### The Delaware.1 Cuff *v.*The Delaware.

*(Circuit Court, E. D. New York.*

December 13, 1887.)

Appeal—Final Decree—Dismissal for Want of Evidence.

A decree of tlie district court dismissing a libel for want of evidence is not. a final decree, within the meaning of the sfatute allowing appeals from the district court, in admiralty, and an appeal therefrom will not lie.

In Admiralty. Ou motion to dismiss appeal,

*Goodrich, Deady & Goodrich,*for libelant.

*Carpenter & Mosher,*for claimant.

1

 Keported by Edward (J. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.

Lacombe, J.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal from a decree of district court, on the ground that such decree is not final, within the meaning of the statute allowing appeals from the district, court, in admiralty. When the case was regularly reached for trial in the district court, appellant’s counsel moved for a postponement, which was refused; and, upon his further statement that his witnesses were all away, and that he had no evidence to offer, counsel for claimant moved to dismiss the libel, as no evidence had been submitted. The motion was granted, and decree of dismissal entered. The case is clearly covered by the prior decisions of *The Merchant,*4 Blatchf. 105; and *Farrell*v. *Campbell,*7 Blatchf. 158.

The motion is granted.
Opinion issued July 14, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-14-00138-CV

———————————

ROLANDO ACEVEDO, CHARLES RAY ALLEY, RODOLFO ALONSO, 

JOSE ALVARADO, MARIO ARAIZA, SEBASTIAN AVILA, EMILIO 

BELTRAN, CLARENCE BOLTON, RALPH BURNETT, MODESTO 

CAMPOS, JAMES CEDARS, JIMMY COLE, ERICH CORBIN, JESUS 

CRUZ, C.M. DEAR, MARIO FERNANDEZ, JAMES FICKLEN, WILLIAM 

FICKLEN, RAFAEL FIGUEROA, MICHAEL GADDIS, RAMIRO 

GARCIA, JOHN W. GARRETT, ARTURO GARZA, MOSSYE HANDY, 

JOHN HEITMAN, JOEL M. HERRERA, RICKIE KIDWELL, HILARIO 

MONREAL, ELMER NELSON, DOMINGO NUNEZ, JUAN T. PENA, 

DAVID PEREZ, ORLANDO PEREZ, THOMAS PYLE, ALEJANDRO 

RAMIREZ, JUAN RANGEL, EZEQUIEL ROBLES, JOSE RODRIGUEZ, 

DAVID RODRIGUEZ, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ, FRANCISCO ROLDAN, 

ISAAC SAENZ, CARLOS SALAZAR, JUAN SANCHEZ, DONALD 

SESSUM, JAMES SIFFERD, JOHN SIMPSON, FIDENCIO R. SORIA, 

JUAN SUAREZ, AND CLARENCE URBAN, Appellants

V.
2

THE O’QUINN LAW FIRM, JOHN M. O’QUINN & ASSOCIATES, LLP, 

THE ESTATE OF JOHN M. O’QUINN, DECEASED, AND ABEL MANJI, 

Appellees

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 392,247-416

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The appellants, Rolando Acevedo, et al., as listed above from their notice of 

appeal, have filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal, representing that 

the parties have settled this case after this Court had granted their motion to abate 

to finalize their settlement agreement. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). The motion 

contains a certificate of conference indicating that counsel for the appellees has 

been contacted and does not oppose this motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1(a)(5), 

10.3(a)(2). No other parties have filed a notice of appeal and no opinion has 

issued. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), (c).

Accordingly, we reinstate this case, grant the motion, and dismiss the appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Huddle, and Lloyd.
[891 NYS2d 858]

#### 244 West 109th Street, LLC, Appellant, v Elizabeth Diaz et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

November 17, 2009

*15APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Cutler Minikes & Adelman, LLP,*New York City, for appellant. *Adam Leitman Bailey, PC.,*New York City, for Tony Diaz, respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Final judgment, entered on or about January 26, 2009, reversed, with $30 costs, and final judgment awarded to petitioner landlord. Issuance of the warrant of eviction shall be stayed for 30 days from the service of a copy of this order with notice of entry.

The jointly represented respondents, mother and son, effectively waived the succession defense initially interposed on behalf of respondent Tony Diaz by stipulating during discovery that respondent tenant Elizabeth Diaz did not at any time permanently vacate the demised stabilized apartment and actively, albeit unsuccessfully, contesting the nonprimary residence claim advanced by landlord against tenant *(cf. United E. LLC v Churi,*24 Misc 3d 80 [2009]). “While parties are accorded considerable latitude in charting their procedural course before the courts . . . they are bound by the consequences attendant upon the exercise of that prerogative” *(Sean M. v City of New York,*20 AD3d 146, 150 [2005] [citations omitted]).

The court’s conduct in resurrecting the previously abandoned succession defense caused substantial prejudice to landlord, which had eschewed discovery and cross-examination of respondents on the succession issue in reliance on their litigation position. Even were the succession issue properly considered on the merits, the court’s finding that tenant permanently vacated the apartment in 1989 — requiring the conclusion that tenant left her then 12-year-old son alone in the apartment — is unsupported by the trial evidence.

McKeon, EJ., Shulman and Hunter, JJ., concur.
# Result 21.6
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 524 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 524

  Calling on the United Arab Emirates to immediately end any form of 
 human rights violations against political prisoners and prisoners of 
                  free speech, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 25, 2019

Mr. Clay submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Calling on the United Arab Emirates to immediately end any form of 
 human rights violations against political prisoners and prisoners of 
                  free speech, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) calls on the United Arab Emirates to immediately end 
        any form of human rights violations, such as torture, the 
        denial of access to health care, or the absence of fair trials, 
        committed against political prisoners or individuals imprisoned 
        for exercising their right to freedom of speech;
            (2) calls for the immediate closure, with or without the 
        prior withdrawal of forces of the United Arab Emirates from 
        Yemen, of any ``secret'' jail under the control of the United 
        Arab Emirates in Yemen; and
            (3) expresses the sense of the House of Representatives 
        that any individual, including any member of the armed 
        services, of the United Arab Emirates involved in war crimes 
        against prisoners or torture should be appropriately prosecuted 
        by that country.
                                 <all>
```
# table67_q9.2_naics
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Principal Executive Officer


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 Quarterly Report of SRKP 10, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard A. Rappaport, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.





/s/ Richard A. RappaportRichard A. RappaportPrincipal Executive OfficerMay 11, 2011
May 12, 2016 

8:30 a.m. Registration 

9:00 a.m. Commissioner’s welcome and review of agency developments (Erica Groshen) 

9:45 a.m. Balancing detail and quality in the Occupational Employment Statistics survey 

 (Rebecca Rust, Laurie Salmon, Joseph Njuguna, Ellen Galantucci, Ken Poole) 

10:30 a.m. Break 

10:45 a.m. Redesigned news releases (Emily Liddel, David Wessel) 

11:45 a.m. Lunch - Gig economy (Mike Horrigan, Julie Hatch-Maxfield) 

1:00 p.m. New CPI estimation system capabilities and stakeholder survey results (John Layng, 

 Bill Wascher) 

2:00 p.m. Measuring quarterly labor productivity by industry (Jennifer Price, Kathryn Kobe) 

3:00 p.m. Break 

3:15 p.m. Research on wages and compensation benefits for non-profits (Kristen Monaco, 

 Randy Eberts) 

4:15 p.m. Meeting wrap-up 

Data Users Advisory Committee (DUAC) Meeting 

Agenda
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1334

PERCY L. WYATT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ROBERT STEIDEL, Director of Public Utilities, City of 

Richmond,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District 

Judge. (3:14-cv-00064-JAG)

Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 23, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Percy L. Wyatt, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Earl Hill, Jr., Stephen 

Michael Hall, RICHMOND CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Percy L. Wyatt appeals the district court’s order granting 

defendant’s motion for summary judgment. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. Wyatt v. Steidel, No. 

3:14-cv-00064-JAG (E.D. Va. Mar. 3, 2015). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5 D 202 3

- 3243 LT Case No

. 2 021

- DP

- 17

____________________________ S.P., F ATHER OF A.P., A C HILD , Appellant,

v. D EPARTMENT OF C HILDREN AND F AMILIES , Appellee.

_____________________________ On a ppeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County

. Angela M. Cox, Judge. Jennifer Cogdill, Fleming Island, for Appellant

. Sarah J. Rumph, of Children’s Legal Se rvices, Tallaha ssee, for Appellee. Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Sarah Todd Weitz, Senior Attorney, Appellate Division, for Statewide Guardian ad Litem. June 10, 2024 P ER C URIAM
. A F FIRMED . E ISNAUGLE , S OUD , and B OATWRIGHT , JJ., concur .2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 .

_____________________________
**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 the Quarterly Report of SRKP 10, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony C.
      Pintsopoulos, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      ss. 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.




/s/ Anthony
              C. PintsopoulosAnthony
                      C. Pintsopoulos
                    Principal
                      Financial Officer
                    August
                      9, 2007
CHIEF JUSTICE

 ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

 NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

 DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

 GINA M. BENAVIDES

 GREGORY T. PERKES

 NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

 CECILE FOY GSANGER

NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FLOOR

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361-888-0416 (TEL)

361-888-0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLOOR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 78539

956-318-2405 (TEL)

956-318-2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa

Court of Appeals 

Thirteenth District of Texas 

July 23, 2015

Hon. Lindsay K. Deshotels

1700 7th St Rm 325

Bay City, TX 77414-5034

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Steven E. Reis

District Attorney

1700 7th Street, Room 325

Bay City, TX 77414

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Monica Lee Strickland

Matagorda County Courthouse

1700 7th Street, Suite 325

Bay City, TX 77414-5034

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Robinson C. Ramsey

Langley & Banack

Trinity Plaza II, Suite 900

745 E. Mulberry Ave.

San Antonio, TX 78212-3166

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Kristen Jernigan

207 S. Austin Ave.

Georgetown, TX 78626

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13-13-00328-CR

Tr.Ct.No. 13-094

Style: FRANK LARA JR. v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

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

Very truly yours,

Cecile Foy Gsanger, Clerk

CFG:ch

Enc.

cc: Hon. 130th District Court (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Hon. Becky Denn, Matagorda County District Clerk (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)
ELECTRONIC RECORD

"S5Q -/S

35"/ "tS

COA # 01-13-00640-CR OFFENSE: 22.02 (Aggravated Assault)

Dustin Wayne Glenn v. The State

STYLE: ofTexas COUNTY: Galveston

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: 405th District Court

DATE: 02/26/2015 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 12CR2237

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS $f&»/f

Dustin Wayne Glenn v. The State of

STYLE: Texas

APPEllj^M 7->£> .Petiti

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE: M/^ljr

JUDGE: JrJsitCl*^-

CCA#:

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:_

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD