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



 Exhibit 10.5 
 THIRD AMENDMENT TO 
 AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE OF PROPERTY 

This Third Amendment to Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Property (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into effective as of the
2nd day of July, 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, that certain First
Amendment to Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Property dated as of May 25, 2010 and that certain Second Amendment to Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Property dated as of June 10, 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 12th 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
#### COOLIDGE v. CITY OF NEW YORK.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 17, 1905.)

Action by Mary E. Coolidge against the city of New York. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs.
COOLEY GODWARD 

KRONISH LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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

1168135 v1/SF

STIPULATION AND

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

CASE NO. 3:09-CV-00879 MMC 

COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP

MICHAEL G. RHODES (116127) (mrhodes@cooley.com)

BEATRIZ MEJIA (190948) (mejiab@cooley.com)

GAVIN L. CHARLSTON (253899) (gcharlston@cooley.com)

101 California Street, 5th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111-5800 

Telephone: (415) 693-2000 

Facsimile: (415) 693-2222 

Attorneys for Defendant 

ADZILLA, INC. 

(erroneously named herein as “ADZILLA, INC. [NEW MEDIA]”) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SUSAN SIMON, an individual on behalf of 

herself and all other similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

ADZILLA, INC. [NEW MEDIA], a Delaware 

Corporation; CONDUCIVE 

CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; 

CONTINENTAL VISINET BROADBAND, 

INC., a Delaware Corporation; CORE 

COMMUNICATIONS, INC., d/b/a 

CORETEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a 

Delaware Corporation; and JOHN DOES 1-

50, Corporations Defendants, 

Defendant.

Case No. 3:09-CV-00879 MMC

STIPULATION AND REQUEST FOR

DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION

AND ORDER THEREON

Case 3:09-cv-00879-MMC Document 79 Filed 03/24/10 Page 1 of 2
COOLEY GODWARD 

KRONISH LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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

1168135 v1/SF 1. 

STIPULATION AND

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

CASE NO. 3:09-CV-00879 MMC 

TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT:

 A settlement agreeable to all parties has been reached in the above-captioned action, 

pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

41(a), the parties respectfully request that this case be dismissed. 

Dated: March 23, 2010 COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP 

MICHAEL G. RHODES 

BEATRIZ MEJIA 

GAVIN L. CHARLSTON 

/s/ Gavin L. Charlston 

Gavin L. Charlston 

Attorneys for Defendant 

ADZILLA, INC. 

Dated: March 23, 2010 KAMBERLAW LLC 

SCOTT A. KAMBER (admitted pro hac vice)

DAVID A. STAMPLEY (admitted pro hac vice)

/s/ Scott A. Kamber 

Scott A. Kamber 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

SUSAN SIMON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Maxine M. Chesney

Dated: March 24, 2010

Case 3:09-cv-00879-MMC Document 79 Filed 03/24/10 Page 2 of 2
#### Bashar HANOUN;* et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-70992.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 12, 2007.**

Filed March 16, 2007.

*547Ravit Rae Halperin, Esq., Korenberg Abramowitz *&*Feldun a Law Corporation, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioners.

District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Mark L. Gross, Esq., Lisa W. Edwards, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Clerk shall correct the docket to reflect that the lead petitioner’s name is Bashar Ha-noun.

**

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Bashar and Rame Hanoun are brothers and natives and citizens of Syria who petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order adopting and affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence and will uphold the IJ’s decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that the harm the Ha-nouns suffered during their service in the Syrian military and during their subsequent employment as painters did not rise to the level of persecution and was not on account of their Christian faith. *See Mansour v. Ashcroft,*390 F.3d 667, 673 (9th Cir.2004). Moreover, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that the Ha-nouns do not have an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution on account of their religion. *See Ghaly v. INS,*58 F.3d 1425, 1431 (9th Cir.1995) (holding that a showing of discrimination is insufficient).

Because the Hanouns did not establish they were eligible for asylum, it follows that they did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Alvarez-Santos v. INS,*332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir.2003).

Because the Hanouns failed to raise their CAT claim before the BIA, the claim is unexhausted and we lack jurisdiction to review it. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

***

 'j-jgjg disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J OH N MAR VI N B AL L AR D, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 10589 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 6 - CR- 0 0 2 8 3 - J CC ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J ohn C . C oughe nour , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r19, 2011 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an d M cK E O W N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J ohn M a rvi n B a l l a r d appe a l s f r om the 60- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d on re m and for res ent enci ng fol l ow i ng hi s j ury- tri al conv i ct i on for s chem i ng t o con ce al a m at er i al fa ct , i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1 00 1(a) (1). W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED DE C 21 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 10589 2 C ontr a ry t o the gove rnm e nt ’ s c ont e nt i on, B a l l a r d’ s r e l e a s e f r om c us t ody on O c t obe r14, 2010, doe s notr e nde rthi s appe a l m ootbe c aus e he r e m a i ns on s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e . See U n i ted S ta tes v . V

e rd in , 24 3 F . 3d 11 74 , 11 78 (9th C i r. 20 01 ) ( appeal no tm oo tbecause “ succ es s f or [B al l ar d] coul d al t erthe supervi se d re l ea se po rt i on of hi s s ent ence ”) (i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i tt ed). B a lla r d c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt f a ile d to c o m p lyw ith 1 8 U .S .C . § 3553( c ) , w hi c h r e qui r e s the c ourtt o s t a t e i n ope n c ourti t s r e a s ons f ori m pos i ng a pa rt i c ul a rs e nt e nc e . B e c aus e B a l l a r d di d notobj e c tt o the c ourt ’ s s t a t e m e ntof r e a s o n s a t s e n te n c in g , th is c o n te n tio n is r e v ie w e d f o rp la in e rr o r . See U

ni ted Stat es v . Mi qb el , 444 F . 3d 1173, 1176 ( 9th C i r . 2006) . B a l l a r d ha s notde m ons tr a t e d the de ni a l of hi s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s , gi ve n the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s l e ngthye xpl a na t i on f orthe s e n te n c e in its w r itte n o r d e r . See U n i ted S ta tes v . O lano , 507 U . S . 725, 732- 34 (199 3). B a lla r d a ls o c o n te n d s th a t h is s ta tu to rym a x im u m s e n te n c e is s u b s ta n tiv e ly unr e a s onabl e . T he s e nt e nc e i s s ubs t a nt i ve l yr e a s onabl e i n l i ghtof the t ot a l i tyof the c i r c um s t a nc e s a nd the 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) s e nt e nc i ng f a c t or s , i n pa rt i c ul a rthe n e e d to p r o te c t th e p u b lic . See U n i ted S ta tes v . Ca r ty , 52 0 F . 3d 98 4, 99 3 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( en banc). AF F I RME D.
### §§444, 445. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 444, act June 25, 1910, ch. 432, 36 Stat. 864, related to leave of absence for entrymen.

Section 445, act Apr. 30, 1912, ch. 100, 37 Stat. 105, related to protection of entries made prior to June 25, 1910.
### §§4411 to 4413. Repealed. Pub. L. 93–288, title VII, §703, formerly title VI, §603, May 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 164; renumbered title VII, §703, Pub. L. 103–337, div. C, title XXXIV, §3411(a)(1), (2), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 3100

Section 4411, Pub. L. 91–606, title II, §201, Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1746, related to cooperation of Federal agencies of a Federal coordinating officer.

Section 4412, Pub. L. 91–606, title II, §202, Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1746, related to formation of emergency support teams of Federal personnel.

Section 4413, Pub. L. 91–606, title II, §203, Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1747, related to cooperation of Federal agencies in rendering emergency assistance, the scope of services, non-liability of the Federal government, employment of temporary personnel, rules and regulations, review of programs, and reports to Congress.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Apr. 1, 1974, see section 605 of Pub. L. 93–288, formerly set out as an Effective Date note under section 5121 of this title.
#### § 241.1235 Cross default.

In the event the borrower commits a default under a prior recorded insured mortgage and the holder thereof initiates a foreclosure proceeding, said default under the prior recorded insured mortgage shall constitute a default under the equity or acquisition loan.
Exhibit 32

 (a) Certification of Quarterly Report by Chief Executive Officer.

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
            SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of GraphOn Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Robert Dilworth, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

   (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
   of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

                                       /s/ Robert Dilworth
                                       -------------------

                                       Robert Dilworth
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       May 15, 2007



<PAGE>




(b) Certification of Quarterly Report by Chief Financial Officer.


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
            SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of GraphOn Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, William Swain, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

   (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
   of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

                                       /s/ William Swain
                                       -----------------

                                       William Swain
                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                       May 15, 2007
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT NIC OLAS C E LESTINO ORELLANAB ELTR ANENA, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 11-72126 Age n c y No. A099-482-656 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 17, 2015 * * B e fore : O’ SC ANNLAIN, LEAVY, a n d FER N ANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Nic ola s C e le stino Ore lla

na -B e ltra ne na , a nat ive and c i tiz e n

of El Sa lva dor, pe titions pro se

for re vie w of the B o ard of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a

ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing his a pplic ation for a s y lum , withholding of rem ova l, a nd prote c tion unde r the 

# FIL ED FEB 24 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).C onve ntion Against Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C .

§ 1252. W e re vie wfor substa ntia l e vide n c e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, Ze haty e v . Gonzale

s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th C ir. 2006), a nd we de ny the pe tition for re vie w. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t Ore lla na B e ltra ne na fa ile d to e sta b l ish thethre ats a

nd e xtortion de m ands he e xpe rie nc e d in El Sa lva dor rise to the le ve l of pe rse c ution. Se eN ahrv ani v . Gonzale

s , 399 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th C ir. 2005) (thre ats did not c om pe l finding of pa st pe rse c ution whe re the pe titione r ne ve r ha d a pe rsona l c onfronta

tion with the

pe o ple thre ate ning him). Substa

ntia l e vide nc e a lso supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t Ore l la na B e ltra ne na fa ile d to e sta b l ish a n obje c tive ly

re a sona b l e we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution. Se e N

agoulk o v . IN S , 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th C ir. 2003) (possibility of future pe rse c ution too spe c ulative ). The re c ord doe s not support Ore lla na B e ltra ne na ’ s c onte ntion tha

t the B IA fa ile d to fully

artic u late its re a sons. Thus, Ore lla na -B e l trane n a ’ s a sy lum

c la im fa ils. B e c a use Ore lla

na -B e l trane na

did not m e e t the lowe r burde n of proof for a sy lum , his withholding of re m ova l c la im

ne c e ssa rily fa ils. Se eZe haty e , 453 F.3d at 1190.

2 1 1 - 7 2 1 2 6Fina lly , substa ntia l e v ide nc e a lso supports the B IA’ s de nia l of C AT re lie f be c a use Ore lla

n a -B e l trane na

fa ile d to e sta

blish it is m

ore like l y tha

n not hewould be torture d by

or with thec onse nt or a c quie sc e nc e of the gove rnm e nt if re turne d to El Sa lva dor. Se e Silay a v . Muk ase y , 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th C i r. 2008). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

3 1 1 - 7 2 1 2 6
#### Hill *v.*Chastain.

Atkinson, J.

1. A ground of a motion for a new trial based upon.the admission of evidence should state what objection was made thereto when it was offered at the trial, and should affirmatively show that the objection was then urged; otherwise no question is raised for determination by the court. *McFarland*v. *Darien &c. R. Co.,*127 *Ga.*97 (56 S. E. 74). Under this rule the assignments of error based on grounds of the motion for new trial complaining of rulings in admitting certain evidence can not be considered.

2. The excerpt from the charge on which error was assigned contains no error requiring a new trial.

*751September 28, 1912.

Appeal. Before Judge Fite. Whitfield superior court. March *23,*1911.

*E. L. Rodgers,*for plaintiff in error. *G. G. Glenn,*contra.

3. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and the discretion of the trial court in refusing a new trial will not he disturbed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
| Name of Subsidiary                                     | State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization | Names under which such subsidiaries do business              |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                   |                                                         |                                                         |
| Rand Finance Corp.                                     | Delaware                                                     | Rand Finance Corp.                                           |
| Rand LL Holdings Corp.                                 | Delaware                                                     | Rand LL Holdings Corp.                                       |
| Lower Lakes Towing Ltd.                                | Canada                                                       | Lower Lakes Towing Ltd.                                      |
| Lower Lakes Transportation Company                     | Delaware                                                     | Lower Lakes Transportation Company                           |
| Grand River Navigation Company, Inc.                   | Delaware                                                     | Grand River Navigation Company, Inc.                         |
| Black Creek Shipping Company, Inc.                |  Delaware                                               | Black Creek Shipping Company, Inc.                 |
| Black Creek Shipping Holding Company, Inc.   | Delaware                                                     |  Black Creek Shipping Holding Company, Inc.   |