alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.9








                                  AMENDMENT TO
                   FINANCIAL ADVISORY AND CONSULTING AGREEMENT


THIS AMENDMENT TO THE FINANCIAL ADVISORY AND CONSULTING AGREEMENT
is made and entered into as of this 5th day of December, 1996 by and between
First American Railways, Inc. (the "Company") and International Capital Growth,
Ltd., formerly known as Capital Growth International, L.L.C., (the
"Consultant").

         In consideration of and for the mutual promises and covenants contained
herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as
follows:

         The parties desire to amend the Financial Advisory and Consulting
Agreement between the parties dated April 26, 1996 (the "Agreement") as follows:

         1. Section 2 of the Agreement shall be amended to provide for an
extension of the term of the Agreement for eighteen (18) months beyond its
existing twenty-four (24) month term, such that the Agreement will expire on
October 26, 1999.

         2. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of the Agreement, the
compensation due to Consultant for the period commencing July 31, 1996 through
the extended term as provided above shall be paid in full by the issuance of
52,500 shares of common stock of the Company (the "Shares") in January 1997. The
Company further agrees to use its "best efforts" to register for resale within
six (6) months the Shares in a post-effective amendment to the pending Form SB-2
Registration Statement No. 333-9601 which has been previously declared
effective.

         3. The two year periods referenced in Sections 8 and 9 of the Agreement
shall be extended for eighteen (18) months and shall expire upon the expiration
of the term of the Agreement.

         4. Except as provided above, the remaining terms of the Agreement are 
hereby ratified and remain in full force and effect.




<PAGE>


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to the
Financial Advisory and Consulting Agreement as of the date hereof.

                           FIRST AMERICAN RAILWAYS, INC.

                                    By: /S/  WILLIAM T. NANOVSKY
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        William T. Nanovsky
                                        Vice President and
                                        Chief Financial Officer


                           INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL GROWTH, LTD.

                                    By: /S/  ALAN L. JACOBS
                                        --------------------------------------
                                        Name:    Alan L. Jacobs
                                        Title:   Senior Managing Director
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
VEDERI, LLC, Appellant

v.

GOOGLE LLC, Appellee

______________________

2022

- 1477, 2022

- 1478, 2022

- 1479, 2022

- 1480

______________________
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No s . 95/000,681, 95/000,682, 95/000,683, 95/000,684.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

S HAUN P HILIP L EE
, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Glendale, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by D AVID A. D ILLARD

.

D AVID A LMELING
, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by M ARK L IANG
, D ANIEL S ILVERMAN
, D ARIN W. S NYDER
, S ORIN G ABRIEL Z AHARIA

.

______________________ Case: 22-1477 Document: 42 Page: 1 Filed: 07/12/2023T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (M OORE
, Chief Judge

, L OURIE and S TOLL
, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

July 1 2 , 2023 Date /s/ Jar r ett B. Perlow Jar rett B. Perlow Acting Clerk of Court Case: 22-1477 Document: 42 Page: 2 Filed: 07/12/2023
#### Pac Fung Feather Co. Ltd., Appellant, v Porthault NA LLC, Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[987 NYS2d 379]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered on or about December 12, 2013, which denied plaintiffs motion to strike defendant’s jury demand, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant did not waive its right to a jury by seeking, in a third-party action, the equitable remedy of disgorgement since its claims in the third-party action are primarily legal in nature and monetary damages would afford a full and complete remedy *(see Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft v Spinale,*177 AD2d 315, 316 [1st Dept 1991]; *see also Le Bel v Donovan,*96 AD3d 415 [1st Dept 2012]).

Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Sweeny, Moskowitz and Freedman, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
                     
                       
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              jun-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   mar-31-1997
<CASH>                                         1,278,285
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,039,246
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    2,766,286
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               6,793,980
<PP&E>                                         1,071,485
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 8,564,358
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,550,866
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       8,670
<OTHER-SE>                                     8,555,688
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   8,564,358
<SALES>                                        3,123,960
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,123,960
<CGS>                                          2,447,173
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  644,629
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (27,018)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             9,683
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                49,493
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (19,817)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            69,310
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   69,310
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .02
        


</TABLE>
Kevin



# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

February 19, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00759

- CV

Gregory JACKSON

, Appellant

v.

Kevin CARLTON

, Appellee

From the 407th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012

- CI

- 19961 Honorable Martha B. Tanner, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellee Kevin Carlton’s brief was due February 9, 2015. Neither the brief nor a motion for extension of time has been filed.

We order Carlton to file his appellee’s brief by March 2, 2015

. If the brief is not filed by the date ordered, the case may be submitted without an appellee’s brief.

_________________________________ Luz E lena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 19th day of February, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
Exhibit 23.1



|     |  |                                                                                                  |  |                                                             
|---- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | KPMG Auditores Consultores Ltda. Av.
Isidora Goyenechea 3520, Piso 2 Las Condes, Santiago, Chile |  | Teléfono +56 (2) 2798 1000 Fax +56 (2)
2798 1001 www.kpmg.cl

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors and Shareholders of

Empresa Nacional de
Electricidad S.A. (Endesa-Chile)

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form F-3 of Endesa-Chile (No.
333-195009)ofour reports dated April 30, 2015, with respect to the consolidated statements of financial position of Endesa-Chile and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, and the related consolidated statements of
comprehensive income, changes in equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2014, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2014, appearing in the Annual
Report on Form 20-F of Endesa-Chile for the year ended December 31, 2014.



|                                
|--------------------------------
|/s/ KPMG                        
|KPMG Auditores Consultores Ltda.
|Santiago, Chile April 30, 2015  

KPMG Auditores Consultores Ltda, a Chilean limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent
member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2741 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2741

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and 
     Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
participate in the City of Hermiston, Oregon, water recycling and reuse 
                    project, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION.

    (a) In General.--The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study 
and Facilities Act (Public Law 102-575, title XVI; 43 U.S.C. 390h et 
seq.) is amended by inserting after section 16__ the following:

``SEC. 16__. CITY OF HERMISTON, OREGON, WATER RECYCLING AND REUSE 
              PROJECT.

    ``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the City 
of Hermiston, Oregon, is authorized to participate in the design, 
planning, and construction of permanent facilities to reclaim and reuse 
water in the City of Hermiston, Oregon.
    ``(b) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the costs of the project 
described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25 percent of the total 
cost.
    ``(c) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not provide funds for the 
operation and maintenance of the project described in subsection 
(a).''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections in section 2 of the 
Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 is 
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 16__ the 
following:

``Sec. 16__. City of Hermiston, Oregon, water recycling and reuse 
                            project.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 22, 2009.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2741

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

     To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and 
     Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
participate in the City of Hermiston, Oregon, water recycling and reuse 
                    project, and for other purposes.
```
**Exhibit 23.1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

****We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-97932, 333-31923, 333-37505, 333-53955, 333-53919, 333-58811, 333-70873, 333-93465 and 333-1109882), and on Form S-8 (No. 333-43074, 333-43076) of Innkeepers USA Trust of our report datedMarch 1, 2007 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting,which appears in this Form 10-K**.**

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 

March 1, 2007
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raymond Vankenie, Appellant.

[862 NYS2d 59]

*850Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Carroll, J.), rendered July 14, 2006, convicting him of attempted assault in the second degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in precluding the testimony of a detective investigator regarding a complainant’s purported motive to fabricate. While proof tending to establish a motive to fabricate is never collateral and may not be excluded on that ground, such proof may be excluded when, as here, it is too remote and speculative *(see People v Monroe,*30 AD3d 616, 617 [2006]; *People v Sawyer,*304 AD2d 775, 776 [2003]; *People v Hoover,*298 AD2d 599 [2002]).

The defendant’s contention, in effect, that the jury’s verdict was repugnant is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Romgobind,*40 AD3d 1133 [2007]; *People v Brown,*38 AD3d 676, 677 [2007]). In any event, the verdict was not repugnant since the acquittal on the counts of attempted murder in the second degree, attempted assault in the first degree, and a third count of attempted assault in the second degree did not negate any of the elements of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree *(see People v Brown,*38 AD3d at 677; *People v Smith,*23 AD3d 416, 417 [2005]; *People v Gatling,*222 AD2d 606 [1995]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80, 85-86 [1982]). Mastro, J.P, Spolzino, Ritter and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF LYNCHBURG

#### E. Wayne Crowder v. Chap Stick Co.

May 23, 1984

By JUDGE NORMAN K. MOON

It now appears that there is no case pending in the Supreme Court that will be decided within the near future concerning the question of wrongful discharge.

I have previously advised you that I would allow plaintiff to amend his pleadings to allege a wrongful discharge provided the statute of limitations had not run on such a cause of action. Plaintiff’s cause of action arose more than one year prior to the commencement of his suits. I am of the opinion that this is not a personal injury action as contemplated in Section 8.01-243 of the Code or a contract action as contemplated in Section 8.01- 246 of the Code. I find no other Code Section that specifically pertains to a statute of limitations for cases such as this. Wrongful discharge is similar to malicious prosecution and abuse of process to which Section 8.01- 248 apply. Therefore, I conclude that Section 8.01-248 is the applicable Code Section. It provides, "Every personal action, for which no limitation is otherwise prescribed, shall be brought within one year after the right to bring such action has accrued."

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to amend his pleadings is denied.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 11
                                   ----------

              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                                                       Years Ended March 31,
                                                --------------------------------
                                                   2002      2001          2000
                                                   ----      ----          ----
Weighted average number
  of common shares outstanding used
  in basic EPS calculation                        196,500   196,539     203,981

Add common stock equivalents
  for shares issuable under
  Stock Option Plans                                2,647     2,641       2,720
                                                ---------   -------     -------

Weighted average number of shares
  outstanding adjusted for common
  stock equivalents                               199,147   199,180     206,701
                                                =========   =======     =======

Net income (loss)                               $ 126,469   (39,007)     62,036
Basic earnings (loss) per share                 $     .64      (.20)        .30
Diluted earnings (loss) per share               $     .64      (.20)        .30
EXHIBIT 31.2
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Christopher C. Siffert, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mitcham Industries, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting. /s/ Christopher C. SiffertChristopher C. SiffertVice President & Corporate ControllerMay 28, 2004
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1040

FREDERICK ONWUMBIKO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC; PINTA 

GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

LONG BEACH MORTGAGE COMPANY,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District 

Judge. (8:12-cv-01733-AW)

Submitted: June 19, 2013 Decided: July 11, 2013

Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frederick Onwumbiko, Appellant Pro Se. John Sears Simcox, 

SIMCOX & BARCLAY, Annapolis, Maryland; John Young Lee, Brian L.
2

Moffett, GORDON FEINBLATT LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Frederick Onwumbiko appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We agree with the district court that 

Onwumbiko’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations.* 

Accordingly, we affirm. Onwumbiko v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, 

N.A., No. 8:12-cv-01733-AW (D. Md. Nov. 30, 2012). 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

 * We note that Onwumbiko disputes on appeal the district 

court’s conclusion that the only fair lending law that J.P. 

Morgan Chase Bank is alleged to have violated is the Real Estate 

Settlement Procedures Act. We conclude, however, that 

Onwumbiko’s action is untimely even considering the alternative 

consumer protection statutes to which he directly and indirectly 

alludes.
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In  connection  with the  accompanying
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Indiantown  Cogeneration,  L.P. for the year ended
December 31, 2002,  I, P. Chrisman  Iribe,  President  Indiantown  Cogeneration,
L.P., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

1. such Annual  Report on  Form 10-K  for the year ended  December  31,  2002,
       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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
       ended December 31, 2002,  fairly presents,  in all material  respects,  the
       financial  condition and results of operations of Indiantown  Cogeneration,
       L.P.

`March 31, 2003                                    s/ P. CHRISMAN IRIBE
                                                  --------------------
                                                  P. Chrisman Iribe
                                                  President
                                                  Indiantown Cogeneration, L.P.`
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leonard Moriah, Appellant.

[857 NYS2d 923]

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Westchester County (Loehr, J.), each rendered April 25, 2005, convicting him of robbery in the second degree under Westchester County indictment No. 04-00088, and attempted rape in the first degree under Westchester County indictment No. 04-00876, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]).

The defendant has not, nor could he have, raised any nonfrivolous issues in his supplemental pro se brief. Spolzino, J.P, Ritter, Dillon, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.