alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
10.20


AMENDMENT
#2 TO LEASE AGREEMENT DATED MAY 30, 2002


	
  DATE:

  	
  August 29, 2005

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  BETWEEN:

  	
  DRY CREEK RANCHERIA

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  BAND OF POMO INDIANS

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  489B Moore Lane

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Healdsburg, California 95448

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  (Lessee)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  and

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  SPRUNG INSTANT STRUCTURES, INC.

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  (Lessor)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  SITE LOCATION:

  	
  Dry Creek Rancheria, Alexander Valley, California

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  AMENDMENT:

  	
  It is hereby agreed that the LEASE AGREEMENT dated
  May 30, 2002 and AMENDMENT #1 TO LEASE AGREEMENT dated February 26, 2004 are
  extended for an additional twenty-four months firm, for the period August 18,
  2005 through August 17, 2007, with Lessee’s monthly payments of $36,230.00 to
  be paid monthly in advance.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  COUNTERPARTS:

  	
  This Agreement may be executed by the parties in
  separate counterparts via facsimile, each of which shall be deemed an
  original and both of which together shall be deemed to be one and the same
  instrument.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  EXISTING AGREEMENTS:

  	
  All other terms of the LEASE AGREEMENT dated May 30,
  2002 and AMENDMENT #1 TO LEASE AGREEMENT dated February 26, 2004 remain the
  same.

  



 


	
  ACCEPTED BY:

  	
  DRY CREEK RANCHERIA BAND OF POMO INDIANS

  	
   

  	
  SPRUNG INSTANT STRUCTURES INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Per

  	
  /s/ Doug Searle

  	
   

  	
  Per

  	
  /s/ Phil Sprung

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Print Name:

  	
  Doug Searle

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Chief Executive Officer

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Dated:

  	
  8/31/05

  	
   

  	
  Dated:

  	
  9/31/05
#### UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gary Dean LEE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-40404

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 19, 2011.

Tracey M. Batson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Frank Warren Henderson, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Defender, Frisco, TX, Amy R. Blalock, Federal Defender’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*397Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gary Dean Lee has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Lee has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*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.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-3531

___________________________

Stephen Newport

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Brian Payton; City of Bettendorf

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellants

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport

 ____________

 Submitted: July 6, 2020

Filed: August 11, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Stephen Newport broughtsuit against Brian Payton and the City of Bettendorf

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss based in part on

qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion and also denied defendants’

subsequent motion for reconsideration based on qualified immunity. Defendants

appeal the denial of qualified immunity, arguing solely that because the district court
failed to rule on Payton’s qualified immunity defense, this court should reverse and

remand with instructions for the district court to thoroughly rule on the issue. 

Newport counters that the district court had no duty to thoroughly analyze qualified

immunity on a motion to dismiss, and contends this court lacks jurisdiction over the

premature appeal. 

Having jurisdiction over this appeal, see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 673

(2009); Hager v. Arkansas Dep’t of Health, 735 F.3d 1009, 1012, 1014 (8th Cir.

2013), and upon careful review of the record, we conclude that it is apparent the

district court, in denying the motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration,

applied the relevant federal pleading standards and concluded that Newport

sufficientlyalleged plausible claimsfor violations of his constitutionalrights, and that

such rights were clearly established, see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 673 (discussing standards

for denial of motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity); Kulkay v. Roy, 847

F.3d 637, 642 (8th Cir. 2017) (same). Because defendants offer no argument on

appeal as to why Payton was entitled to qualified immunity on the face of the

complaint, we decline to consider the merits of the district court’s ruling sua sponte. 

See Waters v. Madson, 921 F.3d 725, 744 (8th Cir. 2019).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed, without prejudice 

to defendants again raising a qualified immunity defense later in the proceedings. See

8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           4,128
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,128
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,128
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    (10,824)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,128
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,807
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,807)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,807)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,807)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Phillip Alan ADAMS, Petitioner-Appellant v. William STEPHENS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 12-11264

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 25, 2013.

Phillip Alan Adams, New Boston, TX, pro se.

*612Sallie Christian-Carnal, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before JOLLY, SMITH, AND CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Phillip Alan Adams, Texas prisoner # 907082, is serving a life sentence imposed after a jury convicted him of capital murder. He filed an untimely 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition in 2007, followed by an unsuccessful motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). We denied a certificate of appealability (COA) from each of those decisions.

In 2012, Adams filed a second Rule 60 motion, arguing that no COA should have been required for his appeal from the denial of the first Rule 60 motion. The district court denied the motion. Adams has appealed to our court without having sought a COA from the district court or our court. Adams denies that a COA is needed.

A COA is required before we may consider this appeal. *See Ochoa Canales v. Quarterman,*507 F.3d 884, 886-88 (5th Cir.2007); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). Because Adams has not obtained a COA and does not ask for one, his appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. *See*§ 2253(c)(1); *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 335-36, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003) (holding that the COA requirement of § 2253(c)(1) “is a jurisdictional prerequisite”). We note nonetheless that the claims Adams seeks to raise on appeal are so plainly frivolous that any further effort to obtain a COA would be futile.

*

 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.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 208 (Monday, October 30, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 50167]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23408]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice: 17-078]


NASA Advisory Council; Charter Renewal

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Notice of renewal of the charter of the NASA Advisory Council.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to sections 14(b)(1) and 9(c) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, as amended (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App.), and after 
consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General 
Services Administration, the NASA Acting Administrator has determined 
that renewal of the charter of the NASA Advisory Council is necessary 
and in the public interest. The renewed charter is for a two-year 
period ending October 20, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Marla K. King, NASA Headquarters, 
300 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20546, phone: (202) 358-1148; email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e48985968885ca8fca8f8d8a83a48a859785ca838b92"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5b363a29373a7530753032353c1b353a283a753c342d">[email protected]</span></a>.

Patricia D. Rausch,
Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2017-23408 Filed 10-27-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-13-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
H. R. 3509 

One Hundred Eleventh Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten 

An Act 

To reauthorize State agricultural mediation programs under title V of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987. 

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 ‘‘Agricultural Credit Act of 2010’’. 

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

Section 506 of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 

5106) is amended by striking ‘‘2010’’ and inserting ‘‘2015’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 208 (Monday, October 30, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 50128]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23533]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS EXAMINATION COUNCIL

[Docket No. AS17-08]


Appraisal Subcommittee Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions 
Examination Council.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Description: In accordance with Section 1104 (b) of Title XI of the 
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, 
as amended, notice is hereby given that the Appraisal Subcommittee 
(ASC) will meet in open session for its regular meeting:
    Location: Federal Reserve Board--International Square location, 
1850 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006.
    Date: November 8, 2017.
    Time: 10:00 a.m.
    Status: Open.

Reports

Chairman
Executive Director
Delegated State Compliance Reviews
Financial Report

Action and Discussion Items

September 13, 2017 Open Session Minutes
``Reporting Requirements'' Proposed Information Collection: OMB 
Clearance pursuant to Paperwork Reduction Act
Bulletin on AMC Registry Fees
Bulletin on 12-month extension of Implementation Period for AMC 
Programs
ASC Rules of Operation--Meeting Schedule

How To Attend and Observe an ASC Meeting

    If you plan to attend the ASC Meeting in person, we ask that you 
send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6a070f0f1e03040d192a0b1909440d051c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="44292121302d2a2337042537276a232b32">[email protected]</span></a>. You may register until close of 
business four business days before the meeting date. You will be 
contacted by the Federal Reserve Law Enforcement Unit on security 
requirements. You will also be asked to provide a valid government-
issued ID before being admitted to the Meeting. The meeting space is 
intended to accommodate public attendees. However, if the space will 
not accommodate all requests, the ASC may refuse attendance on that 
reasonable basis. The use of any video or audio tape recording device, 
photographing device, or any other electronic or mechanical device 
designed for similar purposes is prohibited at ASC meetings.

    Dated: October 25, 2017.
James R. Park,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2017-23533 Filed 10-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6700-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-8515
WALTER D. SHANNON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-1425-0-20BD) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 2, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter D. Shannon, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewedthe record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Shannon v. South Carolina , No. CA-95-1425-0-20BD (D.S.C. Nov. 16, 1995). 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
EXHIBIT 31.2
 
 **CERTIFICATION**
 
 I, Cameron King, certify that:
 
 1.
I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of Quest Oil Corporation. 
 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; 
 3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 
 4.
The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated 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 controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
 
 5.
The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely 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 other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 
 Date: November 19, 2004 /s/ Cameron King
 Cameron King, Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit
10.1


ADDENDUM TO
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT


This Addendum to
Employment Contract (“this Addendum”) is entered into by and between Westaff
Support, Inc. (“Westaff”) and Eric Person (“you”) with respect to the standard
form of “at will” Employment Contract between the parties dated August 14,
2006 (“the Employment Contract”). The parties hereby modify the Employment
Contract to reflect that your employment will continue on the following
additional terms and conditions:


1.       Paragraph 1 entitled “Duration”
is modified to delete the first sentence in its entirety and to insert the
following three sentences:   “Your employment shall start or continue as of
8/7/06 and shall continue thereafter until terminated by either party.  If Westaff 
terminates the employment, it will provide you six (6) months’ advance
notice of termination.  If you terminate
the employment, you will provide Westaff at least two weeks advance notice of
termination.”


2.       Paragraph 1 entitled “Duration”
is further modified to delete subparagraph a in its entirety.


3.                     In all other
respects, the terms and conditions of the Employment Contract shall remain in
full force and effect as originally stated.


4.       You hereby acknowledge that
you have read and understood this Addendum. By signing below, you acknowledge
receipt of a copy of this Addendum and agree to abide by its terms and conditions.


	
  

  	
  EMPLOYEE:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ Eric Person

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Date:

  	
    4/12/2007

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Eric Person

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  WESTAFF SUPPORT, INC.

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ John P. Sanders

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Senior Vice President

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  John P. Sanders

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  and Chief Financial Officer
#### Jonathan Leigh HENSLEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sherrie SIMMONS, Lieutenant at the Rutherford County Jail; Alan Young, Employee at the Rutherford County Jail, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-7055.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 16, 2011.

Decided: March 31, 2011.

Jonathan Leigh Henslee, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Douglas MacLatchie, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

*276Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Leigh Henslee appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Henslee v. Simmons,*No. 1:04-cv-00152-GCM, 2010 WL 2650964 (W.D.N.C. July 1, 2010). Henslee’s motions for a transcript at government expense and for appointment of counsel are denied. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
<PAGE>   1



                                   EXHIBIT 23




The Board of Directors
PVF Capital Corp:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-97450, No. 33-86116 and No. 333-48446) on Form S-8 of PVF Capital Corp. of
our report dated July 27, 2001, relating to the consolidated statements of
financial condition of PVF Capital Corp. and subsidiaries as of June 30, 2001
and 2000, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders'
equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended June
30, 2001, which report appears in the June 30, 2001 Annual Report on Form 10-K
of PVF Capital Corp.



/s/ KPMG LLP


Cleveland, Ohio
September 25, 2001