alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.9
  SECOND
    LEASE AMENDMENT
    Recitals
          Amendment
    Terms
  Additional Premises.
  Expiration
    Date.
  Renewal Option.
  Right of First Refusal.
  Rental
    Rate.
 1




---



##### 



Year

Annual Base Rent


Price per Sq. Ft.9-1-08 through 4-14-09

$
390,811.51


$
.901764-15-09 through 8-31-09

$
429,880.26


$
.901769-1-09 through 8-31-10

$
966,063.56


$
.92889-1-10 through 8-31-11

$
966,063.56


$
.92889-1-11 through 8-31-12

$
995,504.47


$
.95679-1-12 through 8-31-13

$
1,024,905.83


$
.98549-1-13 through
    12-31-13

$
351,865.83


$
1.0149   Security
    Deposit.
  Landlord Improvements.
  Operational and Utilities
    Expenses.
  Use of Racks.
  Condition of Additional
    Premises.
  Free Rent. and
  Office Construction and
    Refurbishment.
 2




---



##### 



Roof Repairs.
  Security System.
  Parking.
  Brokerage Fee.
  Reaffirmation of Lease.
  Counterparts.
     SY CORPORATION, a Nevada Corporation
  By:
    /s/  Jeff
    Yassai    Date:
    4-15-2009     I-FLOW CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation
  By:
    /s/  James
    J. Dal Porto    Date:
    4/15/09 3
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE

#### City of Roanoke v. Virginia Employment Commission and Robert J. Lee

June 15, 1981

Case No. F8583

By JUDGE ERNEST W. BALLOU

The issue in this case is whether the decision of January 13, 1981, of the Virginia Employment Commission that claimant was suspended from work with the City of Roanoke on February 5, 1980, for reasons which would not be disqualifying is supported by the evidence and is a proper interpretation of the law.

The facts are set forth in the Commission’s decision of January 13, 1981, and memoranda of counsel and are not in dispute. Claimant held a position of trust and responsibility with the Food Stamp Program, City of Roanoke, as an eligibility worker; while so employed he was indicted for embezzling monies (quasi-public) from a local lifesaving crew for which he was later convicted. On February 5, 1980, he was suspended in accordance with the City of Roanoke’s operating procedure, number twenty-eight, which provides:

> Where an employee is charged with a crime for which a jail or prison sentence is possible punishment or part of the possible punishment and a person convicted of such crime would not be suitable for continued *30employment in his particular job, such employee may be suspended until final disposition of the matter by the court trying the case.

The Commission consistently holds that an individual on suspension has been discharged from his job and will be treated as such.

*Branch*v. *Virginia Employment Commission and Virginia Chemical*Company, 219 Va. 609, 248 S.E.2d 180 (1978), as authority has been cited and quoted by the Commission and the City.

Claimant has deliberately violated the operating rules and procedures of the City of Roanoke having been indicted for embezzlement while holding a position of trust and responsibility. A person in such capacity would not be suitable for continued employment in that particular job. This conduct was directly in connection with claimant’s work. The Court is of opinion that there is no evidence to support. the decision of January 13, 1981, of the Commission and that the decision is an improper interpretation of the law.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2908 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2908

  To protect the First Amendment rights of individuals to share their 
    experiences and perceptions of the effects of foods and dietary 
                              supplements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 13, 2011

   Mr. Paul introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To protect the First Amendment rights of individuals to share their 
    experiences and perceptions of the effects of foods and dietary 
                              supplements.

    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 ``Testimonial Free Speech Act of 
2011''.

SEC. 2. DISSEMINATION OF CONSUMER TESTIMONIALS REGARDING THE 
              MITIGATIVE, PREVENTIVE, OR CURATIVE PROPERTIES OF A FOOD 
              OR DIETARY SUPPLEMENT.

    (a) Dissemination of Testimonials.--Notwithstanding the Federal 
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), the Federal Trade 
Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.), and any other provision of law--
            (1) no Federal official or employee may restrict 
        dissemination of a testimonial containing a consumer's actual 
        perception of the mitigative, preventive, or curative 
        properties of any food or dietary supplement based on the 
        consumer's experience with that food or dietary supplement; and
            (2) if a person disseminating a testimonial reasonably 
        believes that the dissemination is covered by paragraph (1), 
        such dissemination shall not constitute a violation of any 
        Federal law.
    (b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) applies to the dissemination of 
a testimonial described in such subsection by any person, including 
dissemination by the manufacturer of a food or dietary supplement for 
purposes of marketing.
    (c) Definitions.--In this Act, the terms ``food'' and ``dietary 
supplement'' have the meanings given to those terms in section 201 of 
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321).
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                               1,662
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0  
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                             190,654      
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (114,266)        
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      78,050     
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              273,626
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         8,105,766        
<OTHER-SE>                                     (8,301,342)            
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        78,050     
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   184,932        
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          0
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                             0 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MARK C. JACKSON,

Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Appellee.

______________________ 

2014-5121

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:14-cv-00277-NBF, Judge Nancy B. Firestone. 

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

O R D E R

Mark C. Jackson files a motion requesting that the 

court treat his motion for “Order of Redress” as a reply 

brief.

Jackson separately moves to consolidate “the case before the Federal Claims case #: 14-277, currently pending 

before this court, with the case before the Court of ApCase: 14-5121 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 10/16/2014
2 JACKSON v. US

peals for Veterans Claims Case # 14-1366 on appeal to 

this court since they have similar or over lapping issues.” 

We note that to the extent that Jackson seeks to consolidate this appeal with United States Court of Appeals 

for Veterans Claims case No. 2014-1366, an appeal from 

that court has not yet been docketed at this court. Additionally, that Veterans Court appeal concerns a petition 

for extraordinary relief filed with the Veterans Court and 

the instant appeal concerns a complaint filed in the 

United States Court of Federal Claims. Thus, consolidation would not be warranted. 

Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion to consolidate is denied.

(2) The other motion is granted to the extent that a 

copy of this order and Jackson’s motion for “Order of 

Redress” shall be treated as a reply brief and transmitted 

to the merits panel assigned to this appeal.

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

Daniel E. O’Toole 

Clerk of Court

s26

Case: 14-5121 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 10/16/2014
Exhibit 21 - Subsidiaries of the Company

Milestone Asset Management Inc.
Milestone Property Management Inc.
Centaur Leasing, Inc.
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Paris, Inc.
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Quincy, Inc.
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Rochester, Inc.
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Savannah, Inc.
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Walpole, Inc.
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Warsaw, Inc.
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Columbus, Inc.
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Danville, Inc.
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Deland, Inc.
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Dubois, Inc.
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Hamilton, Inc.
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Janesville, Inc.
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Montgomery, Inc.
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Natchez, Inc.
Minotaur Mortgage Company of North Canton, Inc.
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Palatka, Inc.
MPI/Pine Oak, Inc.
MPI/Regency Walk, Inc.
MPI/Orange Park, Inc.
MPI/Teeca Plaza, Inc.
MPI/Country Grove Plaza, Inc.
MPI/Mandarin Central, Inc.
MPI/Pine Crest, Inc.
MPI/Lincoln Park Davie, Inc.
MPI/Zanesville, Inc.
MPI/Renaissance L.L.C.
MPI/Miami Edgewater L.L.C.
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 21

                           SUBSIDARIES OF REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          JURISDICTION OF
      COMPANY NAME                                         INCORPORATION
      -------------                                       ----------------
<S>                                                       <C>
AUDIO CONSULTANTS CO., LTD.                                 HONG KONG

AUDIO CONSULTANTS (MACAU) COMPANY LIMITED                   MACAU

EVI AUDIO (AUST) PTY LIMITED                                AUSTRALIA

EVI AUDIO FRANCE S.A.                                       FRANCE

EVI AUDIO GMBH                                              GERMANY

EVI AUDIO HOLDINGS (DEUTSCHLAND) GMBH                       GERMANY

EVI AUDIO (HONG KONG) LTD.                                  HONG KONG

EVI AUDIO JAPAN, LTD.                                       JAPAN

KLARK TEKNIK GROUP (UK) PLC                                 ENGLAND

SAGUARO ELECTRONICA, S.A. DE C.V.                           MEXICO

SHUTTLESOUND LIMITED                                        ENGLAND

TELEX COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL, LTD.                    DELAWARE, U.S.

TELEX COMMUNICATIONS, LTD.                                  ONTARIO, CANADA

TELEX COMMUNICATIONS, S.A. DE C.V.                          MEXICO

TELEX COMMUNICATIONS (SEA) PTE, LTD.                        SINGAPORE

TELEX COMMUNICATIONS (UK) LTD.                              ENGLAND

TELEX HOLDINGS (UK) LTD.                                    ENGLAND
</TABLE>
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2854 

To repeal the rule relating to the notification of employee rights under 

the National Labor Relations Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 7, 2011 

Mr. DESJARLAIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To repeal the rule relating to the notification of employee 

rights under the National Labor Relations Act. 

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 ‘‘Employer Free Choice 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF RULE RELATING TO THE NOTIFICATION 

7 OF EMPLOYEE RIGHTS UNDER THE NA8 TIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT. 

9 (a) REPEAL.—The final rule (including any supple10 ment or revision to such rule) on ‘‘Notification of EmVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:11 Sep 08, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2854.IH H2854

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2854 IH

1 ployee Rights under the National Labor Relations Act’’ 

2 published by the National Labor Relations Board in the 

3 Federal Register on August 30, 2011 (76 Fed. Reg. 

4 54006 et seq.), is repealed. 

5 (b) RULES REQUIRING NOTIFICATION OF EMPLOYEE

6 RIGHTS UNDER NLRA PROHIBITED.—The National 

7 Labor Relations Board shall not promulgate or enforce 

8 any rule that requires employers to post notices informing 

9 their employees of their rights as employees under the Na10 tional Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) on or 

11 after the date of enactment of this section. 

12 (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this Act 

13 shall be construed to prohibit an employer from volun14 tarily posting a notice informing the employees of the em15 ployer of their rights as employees under the National 

16 Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.). 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.19

 

Executive Officer Compensation

 

The annual base salaries for our executive officers as of January 1, 2011 are as follows:

 

	
Name
    	
 
    	
Title
    	
 
    	
Annual Base
   Salary
    	
 
    
	
George A. Lopez, M.D. 
    	
 
    	
Chairman   of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
    	
 
    	
$
    	
670,000
    	
 
    
	
Alison D. Burcar 
    	
 
    	
Vice   President of Product Development
    	
 
    	
$
    	
225,000
    	
 
    
	
Richard A. Costello 
    	
 
    	
Vice   President of Sales
    	
 
    	
$
    	
336,000
    	
 
    
	
Scott E. Lamb 
    	
 
    	
Chief   Financial Officer
    	
 
    	
$
    	
361,600
    	
 
    
	
Steven C. Riggs 
    	
 
    	
Vice   President of Operations
    	
 
    	
$
    	
330,000
    	
 
    


 

2010 Discretionary Bonuses:

 

In July 2010, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors approved payment of discretionary bonuses to the above named officers for the first half of 2010, and in January 2011, the Compensation Committee approved discretionary bonuses to each of the above named officers for the second half of 2010.  The amount of the bonuses for the first half of 2010 were previously reported in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on July 20, 2010, and the amount of the bonuses for the second half of 2010 were previously reported in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on February 2, 2011, each of which reports are incorporated herein by reference.
SHATSWELL, MacLEOD & COMPANY, P.C.
                        CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

                               83 PINE STREET
                   WEST PEABODY, MASSACHUSETTS 01950-3535
                          TELEPHONE (978) 535-0208
                          FACSIMILE (978) 535-9908

                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Slade's Ferry Bancorp of our report dated January 15, 1999.


                                       /s/ SHATSWELL, MacLEOD & COMPANY, P.C.
                                       SHATSWELL, MacLEOD & COMPANY, P.C.

West Peabody, Massachusetts
March 25, 1999
Exhibit 32.1




CEO 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 Annual Report of Emclaire Financial Corp. (the “Corporation”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William C. Marsh, Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Corporation.




/s/William C. MarshWilliam C. MarshChief Executive OfficerMarch 23, 2011
December
23, 2004
 
 To:
 
 PLM
Equipment Growth Fund V, LP
 
 LETTER OF
INTENT
 
 
 To Whom
It May Concern:
 
 PLM
International, Inc. is pleased to confirm and acknowledge a firm commitment to
sell 22 newly constructed 25,489wg CI Tank Cars to PLM Equipment Growth Fund V,
LP on or before December 31, 2005. The total price is $1,633,172.00 including
acquisition and lease negotiation fees.
 
 PLM
International, Inc. also confirms and acknowledges a firm commitment to sell 6
newly constructed 30,145wg NCNI Tank Cars to PLM Equipment Growth Fund V, LP on
or before December 31, 2005. The total price is $362,888.00 including
acquisition and lease negotiation fees.
 
 
 SELLER:
 
 PLM
International, Inc., a Delaware corporation
 
 By:  ________________________________
 Name:  ________________________________
 Its:  ________________________________
 
 Address:  c/o 200
Nyala Farms
 Westport,
CT 06880
#### David M. McCLURE, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Commissioner Ozmint, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 07-7004.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 30, 2007.

Decided: Jan. 4, 2008.

Jeffrey P. Bloom, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Donald John Zelenka, South Carolina Attorney General’s Office, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David M. McClure, Jr., 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 dispositive 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 McClure has 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 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed January 20, 2016.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D14-2562

Lower Tribunal No. 07-39482

________________



### Willie Dumel,

Appellant,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the

Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Migna Sanchez-Llorens

, Judge.

Law Offices of Andrew Rier and Daniel Tibbitt, for appellant

.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jacob Addicott, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, C.J., and LAGOA and LOGUE, JJ.

LAGOA, J.

The appellant, Willie Dumel (“Dumel”) appeals the summary denial of his

motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure3.850. Because Dumel’s motion was not properly sworn, we reverse the trial

court’s denial and remand for further proceedings.

Dumel moved for postconviction relief under rule 3.850 based on newly

discovered evidence. The trial court addressed the merits of his claim and the

motion was summarily denied. The motion and reply to the State’s response,

however, both of which were filed by counsel, contained no oath. Although

Dumel’s attorney stated in the motion that he would “supplement this motion with

a sworn affidavit” from Dumel, the record before this Court shows no such

supplementary filing.

A rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief “must be under oath.” Fla. R.

Crim. P. 3.850(c). Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.987, which sets forth the

model form for use in postconviction 3.850 motions, provides that the motion must

be signed by the defendant and contain one of two permissible versions of the oath,

both of which contain language that the defendant has read the motion and that the

facts stated in it are true. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.987(1). A defendant's failure to

comply with the oath requirement warrants dismissal of the motion without

prejudice. See Groover v. State

, 703 So. 2d 1035, 1038 (Fla. 1997); Welch v.

State

, 946 So. 2d 649, 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). The defendant, however, must be

given an opportunity to amend the motion. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(2); Gisi

v. State

, 135 So. 3d 493, 495 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).

2Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for dismissal of

Dumel’s 3.850 motion without prejudice to Dumel timely filing a verified rule

3.850 motion.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

3
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

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

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

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 1 A1 46 5 . MELVI N ROSS EURE, I I I v . J ULI E GREENLEE et a l

.
Hav i n g fu l ly co n s id ered t h e reco rd an d b ri efs o f t h e p art i es , th i s d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal i s h ereb y

d i s m i ss ed as i m

p ro v i d en t l y

g ran t ed

.

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

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

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

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

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

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

.

, C l e r k

. 

## January 26, 2022

01/26/2022