alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.9.(a)



 Exhibit 10.9(a) 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE 
 THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE is entered into as of the 22nd day of May, 2009, by and between AMERICAN UNITED LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY as a beneficiary of Lake County Trust No. 3535 (collectively hereinafter called “Landlord”) and EXACTTARGET, INC., a
Delaware corporation (hereinafter called “Tenant”). 
 W I T N E S S E T H: 

WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant heretofore entered into that certain Gibson Building Office Lease dated as of May 27, 2008 (the
“Lease”), pursuant to which Landlord leased to Tenant the Leased Premises, as defined in the Lease; and 
 WHEREAS,
the parties desire to further amend the Lease in certain particulars as hereinafter set forth. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the parties set forth herein, the parties hereby agree as follows: 

1. There shall be added to Article III of the Lease a new Section 3.08 which shall read as follows: 

“Section 3.08. 5th Floor Men’s Restroom. Landlord has given Tenant the
approval to modify the 5th Floor Men’s restroom to
include the removal of two lavatories, the relocation of the urinals, and the addition of three toilets as more specifically described on construction plans prepared by Axis Architects dated February 23, 2009. All the restroom changes,
including but not limited to the changes in plumbing and air conditioning, shall be at the Tenant’s sole cost. Upon the expiration or early termination of the Lease, Tenant, at Tenant’s cost and at Landlord’s option, shall restore the
5th floor restroom to its original condition and
figuration prior to the modifications approved hereunder using similar finishes and fixtures as were existing prior to such modification. Tenant shall complete the restoration work within sixty (60) days after the Lease expires or is
terminated.” 







 2. All other terms and provisions of the Lease shall remain unmodified and in full force and
effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Landlord and Tenant have executed this First Amendment to Lease as of the date first above
written. 
  

			
	AMERICAN UNITED LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
		
	By:	 	/s/    David C. Marks


  

			
	Printed Name:	 	David C. Marks


  

			
		
	Title:	 	Vice President


  

			
	EXACTTARGET, INC.


  

			
	By:	 	/s/    William K. Boncosky
		 	William K. Boncosky, General Counsel



  
 2
Exhibit 3.1

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                           TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                              OF AXTIVE CORPORATION

      Pursuant to the provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law
of the State of Delaware, Axtive Corporation, a corporation organized and
existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware (the "Corporation"), does hereby certify:

      FIRST: That the Board of Directors of the Corporation, by unanimous
consent pursuant to Section 141(f) of the General Corporation Law of the State
of Delaware, adopted a resolution setting forth and declaring advisable the
following proposed amendment to the Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation, as amended, of the Corporation:

      That Article Four of the Corporation's Amended and Restated Certificate of
      Incorporation, as amended, be amended and restated in its entirety as
      follows:

                                  "ARTICLE FOUR

                                  Capital Stock

                  The Company shall have the authority to issue a total of Two
            Hundred Five Million (205,000,000) shares, consisting of (a) Two
            Hundred Million (200,000,000) shares of common stock, par value
            $0.01 per share, and (b) Five Million (5,000,000) shares of
            preferred stock, par value $0.01 per share. The preferred stock may
            be issued from time to time in one or more series and with such
            voting powers, full or limited, or no voting powers, and such
            designations, preferences and relative, participating, option or
            other special rights or qualifications, or restrictions thereof, as
            shall be stated and expressed in this Certificate or in any
            amendment hereto, or in a resolution adopted by the board of
            directors."

      SECOND:That thereafter, pursuant to resolution of the Board of Directors,
the proposed amendment was submitted to the stockholders of the Corporation, and
the necessary number of shares as required by statute was voted in favor of the
amendment.

      THIRD: That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the
provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.

      FOURTH:That this Certificate of Amendment shall be effective upon the
filing hereof.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this certificate to be
signed by Graham C. Beachum III, its President and Chief Operating Officer, this
11th day of January, 2005.

                                     AXTIVE CORPORATION


                                     By: /s/ GRAHAM C. BEACHUM III
                                         --------------------------------------
                                         Graham C. Beachum III
                                         President and Chief Operating Officer
S. 994 

One Hundred Fourteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the sixth day of January, two thousand and fifteen 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1 Walter 

Hammond Place in Waldwick, New Jersey, as the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Joseph 

D’Augustine Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. STAFF SERGEANT JOSEPH D’AUGUSTINE POST OFFICE 

BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 1 Walter Hammond Place in Waldwick, New 

Jersey, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Joseph 

D’Augustine Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Joseph D’Augustine Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6938** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. THOMAS J. MACWILLIAMS, a/k/a Greg, a/k/a Cpl. George , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Clarksburg
. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. ( 1:06

- cr - 00059

- JPB

- JSK

- 1; 1:12

- cv - 00140

- JPB

- JSK )

Submitted : October 22, 2013 Decided: October 25, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Thomas J. MacWilliams, Appellant Pro Se. Shawn Angus Morgan, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Thomas J. MacWilliams seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and den ying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district c ourt’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demo nstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that MacWilliams ha s not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 31.2


Certification of Chief Financial Officer of Marcus & Millichap, Inc. pursuant to


Rule 13a-14(a) under the Exchange Act,


as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


I, Steven F. DeGennaro, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this Amendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Marcus & Millichap, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2023; and


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: February 27, 2024/s/ Steven F. DeGennaroSteven F. DeGennaroChief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
       AMERICAN TELESOURCE INTERNATIONAL INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES        Exhibit 11
                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
                                 (In thousands)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                              For the three months ended
                                                         October 31, 1997   October 31, 1998
                                                         ----------------   ----------------
<S>                                                      <C>                  <C>   
COMPUTATION OF BASIC LOSS PER SHARE
     Net loss                                                    ($1,298)             ($642)
                                                         ===============    ===============

WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF SHARES OF
     COMMON STOCK OUTSTANDING                                     37,068             45,627
                                                         ===============    ===============

BASIC LOSS PER COMMON SHARE                                       ($0.04)            ($0.01)
                                                         ===============    ===============

COMPUTATION OF DILUTED LOSS PER SHARE
     Net loss                                                    ($1,298)             ($642)
     Interest not incurred upon assumed conversion
       of convertible note                                             3                  0
                                                         ---------------    ---------------
     Net loss applicable to common stockholders
       used for computation                                      ($1,295)             ($642)
                                                         ===============    ===============

     Weighted average number of shares of common
       stock outstanding                                          37,068             45,627

     Weighted average incremental shares outstanding
       upon assumed conversion of options and warrants            14,936              1,611

     Weighted average incremental shares outstanding
       upon assumed conversion of convertible note                   200                  0
                                                         ---------------    ---------------

WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMMON SHARES AND
     COMMON SHARE EQUIVALENTS USED FOR
     COMPUTATION                                                  52,204             47,238
                                                         ===============    ===============
DILUTED LOSS PER COMMON SHARE AND
     COMMON SHARE EQUIVALENT                                      ($0.02)            ($0.01)
                                                         ===============    ===============
</TABLE>

(a)    This calculation is submitted in accordance with Item 601(b)(11) of
       Regulation S-K although it is not required by SFAS No. 128 because it is
       antidilutive.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Alfonso CONTRERASGUICHO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-10166.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 3, 2007 *.

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Timothy Francisco Andrews, Yuma, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Miguel Alfonso Contreras-Guicho, Central Arizona Detention Center, Florence, AZ, Donald W. MacPherson, Esq., The MacPherson Group, PC, Glendale, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

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

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Miguel Alfonso Contreras-Guicho appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 37-month sentence for attempted re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Pursuant to *Anders v. Califor*
      *53
      *nia,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Contreras-Guicho’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Because Contreras-Guicho knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and was sentenced within the terms of the plea agreement, we enforce the waiver and dismiss the appeal. *See United States v. Nguyen,*235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2000).

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*53ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Helen Salichs, Appellant, v Warren James, Respondent.

Submitted January 28, 2008;

decided February 19, 2008

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see 9*NY3d 998 (2007)].
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Panagiotis Souris, Also Known as Peter Souris, Appellant.

Submitted February 19, 2008;

decided March 13, 2008

*784Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6210

JAVON LAREN MARTIN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

BARRY KANOKE, Warden, River North Correctional Center,

Respondent.

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

Norfolk. Douglas E. Miller, Magistrate Judge. (2:18-cv-00111-DEM)

Submitted: June 20, 2019 Decided: June 25, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Javon Laren Martin, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Javon Laren Martin seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable 

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Martin has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2571 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2571

To provide the Director of the Congressional Research Service with the 
 authority to obtain information directly from agencies of the Federal 
                              Government.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 15, 2011

Mr. Schock (for himself and Mr. Quigley) introduced the following bill; 
      which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide the Director of the Congressional Research Service with the 
 authority to obtain information directly from agencies of the Federal 
                              Government.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Transparency and Accountability in 
Government Act''.

SEC. 2. ACCESS OF CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE TO GOVERNMENT 
              INFORMATION.

    (a) Direct Access to Information.--Section 203 of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 166) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (k); and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (i) the following new 
        subsection:
    ``(j) In carrying out the duties and functions of the Congressional 
Research Service in response to a request made by a Member of Congress, 
the Director is authorized to secure such information, data, estimates, 
and statistics directly from the various departments, agencies, and 
establishments of the executive branch of the Government and the 
regulatory agencies and commissions of the Government as the Director 
determines (with the approval of the Member making the request) to be 
necessary to carry out the request, and all such departments, agencies, 
establishments, and regulatory agencies and commissions shall furnish 
the Director with all such available material (other than material the 
disclosure of which would be a violation of law).''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 203(d)(1) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
166(d)(1)) is amended in the matter following subparagraph (C) by 
striking ``and in the performance of this duty'' and all that follows 
through ``comply with such request;''.
                                 <all>
```
#### LONG XUE LIN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-76994.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 3, 2007 **.

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

David X. Feng, Esq., The Feng Law Firm, PC, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

AKA-District Counsel, Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Anchorage, AK, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, P. Michael Truman, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 Pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2), Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States.

**

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Long Xue Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s April 16, 2004, order dismissing Lin’s direct appeal from the Immigration Judge’s decision because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); *Singh v. INS,*315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

We lack jurisdiction over Lin’s claim that the deadline for filing a motion to reopen should have been equitably tolled because Lin did not raise this claim before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the BIA).

Lin has not provided argument on, and has therefore waived any challenge to, the BIA’s determination that he failed to establish “changed circumstances” in China. *See Ghahremani v. Gonzales,*498 F.3d 993, 997-98 (9th Cir.2007).

Lin’s due process claim is not colorable. *See Torres-Aguilar v. INS,*246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001).

*958PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Banoro GARRETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 07-7231.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 17, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 24, 2008.

Banoro Garrett, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty Martin, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Banoro Garrett seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dis-positive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Garrett has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Garrett’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before *546the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*