alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Second Amendment to Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Property



  
 Exhibit 10.4 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO 

AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE OF PROPERTY 
 This Second Amendment to Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Property (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into effective as of the 10th day of June, 2010, by and between DAKOTA HILL PROPERTIES, A TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (“Seller”), and
KBS REALTY ADVISORS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Buyer”). 

A.        Buyer and Seller entered into that certain Agreement for Sale and Purchase of
Property dated as of the 31st day of March, 2010 and that certain First
Amendment to Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Property dated as of May 25, 2010 (collectively, the “Agreement”). Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the
Agreement. Subject to the terms set forth in the Agreement, Buyer has agreed to purchase the Property from Seller. 

B.        Buyer and Seller desire to and hereby amend the Agreement on all of the terms, provisions and
conditions contained herein. 
 In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties, intending to be legally bound, agree as follows: 
 1.        Section 6.3 of the Agreement shall be amended to provide that the Inspection Date shall be the 7th day of July, 2010. 
 2.        This Amendment is integrated into and made a part of the Agreement. Except as specifically otherwise specifically provided herein, all other terms and conditions of
the Agreement, as hereby amended, are ratified and confirmed and shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. In the event of any conflict between this Amendment and the Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Amendment shall govern and
control. Seller and Buyer have obtained any and all necessary consents and/or approvals prior to executing this Amendment. This Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, which when taken together shall constitute one and the same
instrument. Executed counterparts of this Amendment transmitted by facsimile or email shall bind the party so signing with the same effect as though the signature were an original signature. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the day and year first written above. 

 

					
	Seller:
	DAKOTA HILL PROPERTIES, A TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
	By:   DAKOTA IRET, Inc., a Texas corporation, its general partner
			
		 	By:	 	/s/ Tom Wentz, Jr.
		 		 	Print Name: Tom Wentz, Jr.
		 		 	Print Title: S.V.P.
			
		 	By:	 	/s/ Diane K. Bryantt
		 		 	Print Name: Diane K. Bryantt
		 		 	Print Title: S.V.P.
	
	Buyer:

	
	KBS REALTY ADVISORS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
	
	By: /s/ Charles J. Schreiber, Jr.
	Print Name: Charles J. Schreiber, Jr.
	Print Title: CEO
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

APRIL 14, 2011

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 10-14411 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 5:10-cv-00077-WTH-GRJ

PATRICK BASS, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN - USP II, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Respondent-Appellee.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Middle District of Florida

 ________________________

(April 14, 2011)

Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Patrick Lemuel Bass, a pro se federal prisoner, appeals from the district

court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2241. Following Bass’s federal conviction, the Federal Bureau of Prisons

temporarily transferred him to the custody of Georgia to face state charges for

which he was ultimately convicted. In his § 2241 petition, Bass attacked the

validity of that state conviction on the ground that he had been improperly

transferred to state custody. Specifically, he argued that the writ of habeas corpus

ad prosequendum authorizing the transfer did not contain an official seal and did

not address the correct federal correctional facility and warden. The district court

denied Bass’s petition, finding that even if the transfer was improper, that would

not invalidate the state conviction.

1

We agree with the district court that, even if Bass’s transfer to state custody

was improper, that would not invalidate his state conviction. As the government

explains, a defendant forcibly abducted by the government for purposes of

bringing him in the court’s presence will not impair that court’s power to try him. 

See United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655, 660–62 (1992). It stands to

reason, as the district court did here, that because even a forcible abduction would

 “The availability of habeas relief under § 2241 presents a question of law we review de 1

novo.” Darby v. Hawk-Sawyer, 405 F.3d 942, 944 (11th Cir. 2005).

2
not entitle Bass to relief, neither do the technical form defects about which he

complains. To the extent Bass seeks to collaterally attack his federal conviction,

he has failed to satisfy the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). See Darby v.

Hawk-Sawyer, 405 F.3d 942, 945 (11th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the

denial of Bass’s § 2241 petition.

AFFIRMED.

3
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         November 25, 2020.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 20, 2020, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 178 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2021-28, CP2021-29.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2020-26132 Filed 11-24-20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### § 1003.505 Records to be maintained.

Each grantee shall establish and maintain sufficient records to enable the Secretary to determine whether the grantee has met the requirements of this part. This includes establishing and maintaining records demonstrating that the recipient has made the determinations required as a condition of eligibility of certain activities, including as prescribed in § 1003.209.

[74 FR 1869, Jan. 13, 2009]
### §8262j. Energy management requirements for United States Postal Service

#### (a) Energy management requirements for postal facilities

(1) The Postmaster General shall, to the maximum extent practicable, ensure that each United States Postal Service facility meets the energy management requirements for Federal buildings and agencies specified in section 8253 of this title.

(2) The Postmaster General may exclude from the requirements of such section any facility or collection of facilities, and the associated energy consumption and gross square footage if the Postmaster General finds that compliance with the requirements of such section would be impracticable. A finding of impracticability shall be based on the energy intensiveness of activities carried out in such facility or collection of facilities, the type and amount of energy consumed, or the technical feasibility of making the desired changes. The Postmaster General shall identify and list in the report required under section 8262i of this title the facilities designated by it for such exclusion.

#### (b) Implementation steps

In carrying 1 subsection (a), the Postmaster General shall—

(1) not later than 1 year after October 24, 1992, prepare or update, as appropriate, a plan (which may be submitted as part of the first report submitted under section 8262i of this title)—

(A) describing how this section will be implemented;

(B) designating personnel primarily responsible for achieving the requirements of this section; and

(C) identifying high priority projects;

(2) perform energy surveys of United States Postal Service facilities as necessary to achieve the requirements of this section;

(3) install those energy conservation measures that will attain the requirements of this section in a cost-effective manner as defined in section 8254 of this title; and

(4) ensure that the operation and maintenance procedures applied under this section are continued.

(Pub. L. 102–486, title I, §166, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2861.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, and not as part of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act which comprises this chapter.

1 So in original. Probably should be followed by the word "out".
Case 3:09-cv-00452-CRB Document 56 Filed 02/03/10 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:09-cv-00452-CRB Document 56 Filed 02/03/10 Page 2 of 3
March 23, 2010 @ 2:30 p.m March 29, 2010 @ 8:30 a.m. February 2, 2010

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:09-cv-00452-CRB Document 56 Filed 02/03/10 Page 3 of 3
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13 -**  **6133**

MICHAEL R. BATCHELOR , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson
. David C. Norton , District Judge. ( 8:12

- cv - 01471

- DCN )

Submitted : April 25, 2013 Decided: April 30, 2013

Before AGEE and WYNN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Michael R. Batchelor , Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General , Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General , Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Michael R. Batchelor 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 (2006) petitio n. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right .” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable o r 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 debata ble, 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 Batchelor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Bathcelor’s motion to appoint counsel, deny a certificate of appealability , and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because3 the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
mat erials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Second Amendment to the Fortune Brands, Inc. Supplemental Plan



 Exhibit 10.1 
 SECOND AMENDMENT 
 TO THE 

FORTUNE BRANDS, INC. SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN 
 (As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2008) 
 The captioned plan (the
“Plan”) is amended to add the following Section 4A after current Section 4, effective as of October 1, 2010: 

“Section 4A. Supplemental Matching Benefits 
  

	 	(a)	An Executive Participant hired after January 1, 2008 or with less than 15 years of Service shall receive a supplemental matching contribution award under this
Plan equal to 0% of the first 3% of covered compensation that the employee elects to contribute to the Profit-Sharing Plan, and 50% of the next 1% of such employee contributions made under the Profit-Sharing Plan. 


 

	 	(b)	The matching contribution awards made under this Plan shall be made on the same day(s) as the Company matching contributions under the Profit-Sharing Plan is
made and shall be deemed to be thereafter invested in the same manner as described under Section 4(b) above The amount of an Executive Participant’s supplemental matching contribution benefits under this Plan shall be the aggregate amount of
such awards together with any deemed investment gain thereon and less any deemed investment loss. 

  

	 	(c)	Supplemental matching contribution awards and deemed investment gain and deemed investment loss thereon shall be fully vested and nonforfeitable.


  

	 	(d)	Supplemental matching contribution benefits under this Plan shall be paid in the same manner as described under Section 4(d). 


 

	 	(e)	A Highly Compensated Employee may designate a beneficiary to receive the unpaid portion of his supplemental matching benefits in the event of his death, in the
same manner as described in Section 4(e) above.”
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6563

SULYAMAN ALISLAM WA SALAAM,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL W. MOORE; CHARLIE CONDON, 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. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-97-3659-0-13BD)

Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 29, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sulyaman Al Islam Salaam, 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 appeals the district court’s order denying relief on

his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.

1997). We have reviewed the 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 appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

Salaam v. Moore, No. CA-97-3659-0-13BD (D.S.C. Apr. 6, 1998). 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
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2945 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2945

To amend the Public Health Service Act to extend preventive-health and 
           research programs with respect to prostate cancer.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 16, 2005

  Mr. LoBiondo (for himself, Mr. Holden, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Hastings of 
 Florida, Mr. King of New York, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Herseth, Mr. Brown 
       of South Carolina, Mr. Moore of Kansas, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. 
 Frelinghuysen, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Owens, Mr. 
Platts, Mr. Holt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Hinchey, and Mr. Issa) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Public Health Service Act to extend preventive-health and 
           research programs with respect to prostate cancer.

    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 ``Prostate Cancer Research and 
Prevention Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.

    (a) Preventive Health Measures.--Section 317D of the Public Health 
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247b-5) is amended by striking subsection (l)(1) 
and inserting the following:
            ``(1) In general.--For the purpose of carrying out this 
        section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as 
        may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 
        2010.''.
    (b) National Institutes of Health.--Section 417B(c) of the Public 
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285a-8(c)) is amended in the first 
sentence by striking ``there are'' and all that follows and inserting 
``there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2010.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2977 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2977

                       One Hundred Ninth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and six

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 306 2nd Avenue in Brockway, Montana, as the ``Paul Kasten Post Office 
                               Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 306 2nd 
Avenue in Brockway, Montana, shall be known and designated as the 
``Paul Kasten Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Paul Kasten Post Office 
Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES V. BONAVENTE, CR No. 09-1163 JSW,

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

1

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CSBN 44332)

United States Attorney

BRIAN STRETCH (CSBN 163973)

Chief, Criminal Division

DENISE MARIE BARTON (MABN 634052)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7359

Facsimile: (415) 436-7234

denise.barton@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CANDIDO BONAVENTE,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR No. 09-1163 JSW

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

This matter is currently scheduled for a Further Detention Hearing before the Honorable

Joseph C. Spero on Friday, February 26, 2010 at 10:30 a.m. By this stipulation, the parties seek

to continue this hearing until Friday, March 5, 2010 at 10:30 a.m.

As grounds for this motion, the United States advises the following: counsel for the

United States has a medical appointment that is expected to conflict with the currently scheduled

hearing and which cannot be rescheduled. Counsel for the defendant has no objection to this

continuance.

//

Case 3:09-cr-01163-JSW Document 83 Filed 02/23/10 Page 1 of 2 Case3:09-cr-01163-JSW Document82 Filed02/22/10 Page1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES V. BONAVENTE, CR No. 09-1163 JSW,

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

2

For these reasons, the parties jointly seek a continuance until Friday, March 5, 2010 at

10:30 a.m. The Speedy Trial Act is not an issue; time has already been excluded through March

11, 2010 by prior order of the Honorable Jeffrey S. White.

SO STIPULATED:

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO

United States Attorney

DATED: February 18, 2010 ____/s/_________________________

DENISE MARIE BARTON

Assistant United States Attorney

DATED: February 22, 2010 ____/s/___________________________

 MICHAEL CARDOZA

JYOTI REKHI

Attorneys for CANDIDO BONAVENTE

For the foregoing reasons, this matter is continued until Friday, March 5, 2010 at 10:30

a.m.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: _____________________ ________________________________

 HONORABLE JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case3:09-cr-01163-JSW Document82 Filed02/22/10 Page2 of 2

2/23/10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Joseph C. Spero

Case 3:09-cr-01163-JSW Document 83 Filed 02/23/10 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of McCoy’s Bar & Grill, Inc., against New York State Liquor Authority et al.

Motion to dispense with printing denied. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente and Bergan, JJ.