alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
10.1








LEASE
ADDENDUM





This
addendum reflects exercise of option terms as part of the initial lease between
Flagship Enterprise Center and ALTAIR Nanotechnologies, a Nevada Corporation,
wherein Altairnano desires to lease an additional 40,000 ft2 of space
adjacent to the originally leased space.  Original beginning date,
terms and conditions apply to the original space of 30,000 ft2, as well
as the additional space of 40,000 ft2.  A
new Schedule B, superceding the original Schedule B, is attached to this
addendum to reflect the added space.























IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties have hereunto set their hands and seals this
1st
day of March, 2008.








ALTAIRNANO
            FLAGSHIP ENTERPRISE
      CENTER, INC.TENANT
            LESSORBY: /s/ Ed Dickinson
            BY: /s/ DeWayne
LandwehrEd Dickinson,
      CFO
            DeWayne Landwehr,
      Executive Director











EXHIBIT
“B”





RENT
SCHEDULE











1st 6
      months
            2nd 6
      months
            2nd
      12 months
            3rd
      12 months
            4th
      12 months
            5th
      12 monthsStipulated
      Fair Market Rent for 50,000 sq ft.*
            “Linear
      Space Progression” See Original Lease
              
              $3.50
            $3.50
            $3.75
            $4.00
            $4.25
            $4.25








*Rent
expressed in annual rental per square foot of Leased Space











Rent
Calculation





During
months 9-12 (March 2008 – June 2008) of this Lease, Tenant shall pay to
Landlord, with respect to each calendar year or fractional calendar year, as the
case may be, total rental payments in the monthly sum of Twenty Thousand Four
Hundred Seventeen Dollars ($ 20,417.00), being the sum of: (a) Eight Thousand
Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($8,750.00) [being the product of $3.50, the rent
per square foot, and 30,000 square feet, the area of the Leased Premises divided
by 12 months] and Eleven Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Seven Dollars ($11,667.00)
[being the product of $ 3.50, the rent per square foot, and 40,000 square feet,
the area of the Leased Premises, divided by 12 months].




During
subsequent 12 Month periods of this Lease, by similar calculation, Tenant shall
pay to Landlord, with respect to each calendar year or fractional calendar year,
as the case may be, total rental payments as follows:






2nd
      12 Months:
            $ 21,875.00 /
      Month3rd
      12 Months:
            $ 23,333.00 /
      Month4th
      12 Months:
            $ 24,792.00 /
      Month5th
      12 Months:
            $ 24,792.00 /
      Month
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7552** 

DAVID ROBINSON , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. VANCE LAUGHLIN; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND , Respondents

- Appellees
.

Appeal from th e United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt
. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. ( 8:10

- cv - 01800

- PJM )

Submitted : January 13, 2011 Decided: January 21, 2011

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dis missed by un published per curiam opinion
. David Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, for Appellee The Attorney General of the State of Maryland.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: David Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The se order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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)
. 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 Robinson 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 materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSE D
#### Terry JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Wanda PARISH, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-10982

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 12, 2011.

Terry James, Dallas, TX, pro se.

Michael V. Abcarian, Esq., Paul M. Lan-agan, Esq., Fisher & Phillips, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Terry James appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Wanda Parish, dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1981 action with prejudice. James has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, challenging the district court’s denial of IFP and certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); Fed. R.App. P. 24(a)(3). James argues that Parish refused to provide verification of his lost wages at Fiesta Food Mart, which prevented him from obtaining personal injury protection benefits under his insurance contract and that Parish’s interference with the enforcement of his insurance *470contract was retaliatory and racially motivated.

James has not shown that the district court erred in granting Parish’s summary judgment motion. We have suggested that a plaintiff does not have a cause of action under § 1981 against a third party for interference with the plaintiffs right to make and enforce contracts. *See Felton v. Polles,*315 F.3d 470, 480 (5th Cir.2002), *abrogated on other grounds, Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White,*548 U.S. 53, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006); *see also Green v. State Bar of Tex.,*27 F.3d 1083, 1086 (5th Cir.1994). Further, James has not shown that Parish acted with intent to discriminate against him on the basis of his race. James did not allege any facts that would indicate that Parish failed to provide the verification of lost wages because of James’s race. *See Green,*27 F.3d at 1086. James is not entitled to relief based on his conclusional allegations. *See Hathaway v. Bazany,*507 F.3d 312, 319 (5th Cir.2007).

This appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. *See Taylor v. Johnson,*257 F.3d 470, 472 (5th Cir.2001). Accordingly, James’s IFP motion is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202 & n. 24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Order entered February 3, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01172-CV

SATFRAZ TAJ AND ZUBEDA TAJ, Appellants

V.

HIGHLANDER COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INVESTMENT, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 366-02669-2018

ORDER

Before Justices Bridges, Osborne, and Reichek

Before the Court are appellants’ February 3, 2020 (1) motion for emergency stay of 

foreclosure sale set for February 4, 2020 and (2) motion for emergency temporary injunction. 

Appellants’ motions are DENIED.

/s/ LESLIE OSBORNE

JUSTICE
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 20365 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
DENYS RAMIREZ

- PADILLA, also known as Denys Iban Ramirez Padilla, also known as Ramiro Bruno, also known as Melvin Ramirez, true name, Melvin Tarik Ramirez

- Padilla , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15

- CR

- 97

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Denys Ramirez

- Padilla (Ramirez) pleaded guilty to being a n alien unlawfully found in the United States after a previous deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). The district court sentenced him to 57 months of imprisonment and a two

- year term of supervised release. On appeal, Ramirez argues that the district court imposed a sentence in violation of the Sixth

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances se t forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 4, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-20365 Document: 00513370235 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2016No. 15

- 20365

2 Amendment because it was based up on a judge

- found fact not admitted by him or proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, he challenges the district court’s determination tha t he reentered the United States in 2008 while still under a criminal justice sentence , in spite of his contention that he reentered the country in 2011. Ramirez explains that this determination resulted in the addition of two points to his criminal history score, and thus, a higher advisory guidelines sentencing range. Ramirez relies on Justice Scalia’s statement in a co ncurring opinion in Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 372

- 75 (2007), for the assertion t hat sentences within the statutory maximum term of imprisonment would violate the Sixth Amendment if they would be unreasonable but for the consideration of a fact f ound by the sentencing judge and not by the jury

. He notes that the reasonableness of the 57

- month sentence was based solely on the district court’s determination that Ramirez had not been truthful about his reentry date. However, Ramirez has filed a mot ion for summary disposition, conceding that his as

- applied Sixth Amendment challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence is foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States v. Hernandez , 633 F.3d 370, 374 (5th Cir. 2011). As he concedes, Ramirez is c orrect that his as
- ap plied Sixth Amendment challenge is foreclosed by Hernandez , 633 F.3d at 374. In Hernandez , we held that a sentence within the statutory maximum that is based upon judge

- f ound facts does not violate the Sixth Amendment. Id . According ly, Ramirez ’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED , and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED

. Case: 15-20365 Document: 00513370235 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/04/2016
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Vernon Barnes, Appellant, v Melvin Williams, Superintendent, Willard Drug Treatment Campus, Respondent.

[858 NYS2d 622]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Seneca County (Dennis F. Bender, A.J.), entered May 3, 2007 in a habeas corpus proceeding. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from a judgment dismissing his petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus. Inasmuch as petitioner was conditionally released to parole supervision during the pendency of the appeal, the appeal is moot *(see People ex rel. Vasquez v Filion,*22 AD3d 991, 992 [2005]; *People ex rel. Williams v Zelker,*38 AD2d 845 [1972]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Smith, Green and Gorski, JJ. *[See*2007 NY Slip Op 30048(U).]
# ***Exhibit 32***

# * *

# ***CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906***

***OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002***

 

Pursuant to 18U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, we the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief FinancialOfficer, respectively, of Canterbury Park Holding Corporation (the “Company”),hereby certify that:

 

(1)                                                          The Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-Kfor the period ended December 31, 2008, (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                                          The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Date: March 31,  2009 | /s/ Randall D. Sampson                      |
|----------------------------|---------------------------------------------|
|                       | Randall D. Sampson                          |
|                       | President and Chief  Executive Officer      |
|                       | Canterbury Park Holding  Corporation        |
|                       |                                        |
| Date: March 31,  2009 | /s/ David C. Hansen                         |
|                       | David C. Hansen                             |
|                       | Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer |
|                       | Canterbury Park Holding  Corporation        |

 

----
<PAGE>
                                                                  Exhibit 23.3


                         REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Equipe Combined Companies
 
    We have audited the combined balance sheets of the Equipe Combined Companies
as of December 31, 1996 and the related combined statements of income,
shareholders' equity and cash flows of the Equipe Combined Companies for the
year then ended not presently separately herein. These financial statements are
the responsibility of the Companies' management. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit.
 
    We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the combined financial statements are free of
material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence
supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit
also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates
made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement
presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our
opinion.
 
    In our opinion, the 1996 financial statements referred to above present
fairly, in all material respects, the combined financial position of the Equipe
Combined Companies at December 31, 1996 and the combined results of their
operations and their cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles.
 
                                          /S/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
 
San Jose, California
November 19, 1997
**Exhibit 21.1.1**

**Subsidiariesof the Registrant**
| **Subsidiary**                       | ** ** | **State of Incorporation** | ** ** |
|--------------------------------------|------------|----------------------------|------------|
|                                 |       |                       |       |
| TESSCO  Incorporated                 |       | Delaware                   |       |
| Wireless  Solutions Inc.             |       | Maryland                   |       |
| TESSCO Service  Solutions, Inc. |       | Delaware                   |       |
| TESSCO de Mexico  S.A. de C.V.       |       | Mexico                     |       |
| TESSCO  Communications Incorporated  |       | Delaware                   |       |
| TESSCO Financial  Corporation        |       | Delaware                   |       |
| TESSCO Business  Services LLC        |       | Delaware                   |       |
| TESSCO Supply  Chain Services, LLC   |       | Delaware                   |       |
| TESSCO Product  Solutions, LLC       |       | Delaware                   |       |
| TESSCO  Integrated Solutions, LP     |       | Delaware                   |       |
| GW Services  Solutions, Inc.    |       | Delaware                   |       |

 

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

PHILIP M. NICOLO

v.

CRYSTAL JONES AND OCCUPANTS

PETITION OF: ROBERT LEE LOVE :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 200 EM 2016

Emergency

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 30 th day of November 2016

, Emergency Motion for Stay of

Eviction is DENIED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         5
       
<S>                                 <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-1996

<CASH>                              3,675,698
<SECURITIES>                          330,615
<RECEIVABLES>                         112,448
<ALLOWANCES>                        0
<INVENTORY>                         8,010,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   14,711,433
<PP&E>                              5,854,849
<DEPRECIATION>                      1,768,970
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     24,058,521
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               9,400,309
<BONDS>                             3,923,267
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<COMMON>                             24,336
<OTHER-SE>                        10,710,609
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      24,058,521
<SALES>                           22,085,141
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  22,085,141
<CGS>                              9,774,161
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     12,660,906
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   2,752,309
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   344,683
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (4,333,548)
<INCOME-TAX>                          12,299
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (4,345,847)
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                      (4,345,847)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          (2.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (2.30)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

KALI A. SMITH, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 259 MAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 29th day of August, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofSRS Labs, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), Ulrich Gottschling, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:

 

3.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

4.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: August 8, 2006 |   |                     |
|---------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                      | By:    | /S/ Ulrich  Gottschling  |
|                      |   | Ulrich  Gottschling      |
|                      |   | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
**Exhibit 8.1**

 

**List of Main Subsidiaries**

 
| **Subsidiaries**                                     | ** ** | **Jurisdiction** | ** ** | **Usual Name**      |
|------------------------------------------------------|------------|------------------|------------|--------------------------|
| Compañía Eléctrica San Isidro S.A.    |       | Chile            |       | San Isidro               |
| Compañía Eléctrica Tarapacá S.A. |       | Chile            |       | Celta                    |
| Empresa de Ingeniería Ingendesa S.A.            |       | Chile            |       | Ingendesa                |
| Empresa Eléctrica Pangue S.A.                   |       | Chile            |       | Pangue                   |
| Empresa Eléctrica Pehuenche S.A.                |       | Chile            |       | Pehuenche                |
| Endesa Eco S.A.                                 |       | Chile            |       | Endesa Eco          |
| Sociedad Concesionaria Túnel El Melón S.A. |       | Chile            |       | Túnel El Melón |
| Endesa Costanera S.A.                                |       | Argentina        |       | Endesa Costanera         |
| Hidroeléctrica El Chocón S.A.              |       | Argentina        |       | El Chocón           |
| Emgesa S.A. E.S.P.                                   |       | Colombia         |       | Emgesa                   |
| Edegel S.A.A.                                        |       | Perú        |       | Edegel                   |

 

----
EXHIBIT 24.2

DATA SYSTEMS NETWORK CORPORATION
POWER OF ATTORNEY



KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of the undersigned
constitutes and appoints Michael W. Grieves, his true and lawful
attorney-in-fact and agents, with full power of substitution, and
resubstitution for him and in his name, place and stead, in any and
all capacities, to sign the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
1997,including any and all amendments thereto, to be filed by Data
Systems Network Corporation, and to file the same with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, granting unto such attorney-in-fact and
agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do and perform
each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in
and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he
might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that
such attorney-in-fact and agents, or any of them, or their or his
substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by
virtue hereof.


Dated:  April 14, 1998


Richard R. Burkhart
-------------------
Richard R. Burkhart