alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Amendment dated and effective May 4, 2006



 Exhibit 10(i) 
 FOURTH AMENDMENT 
 TO THE 
 NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION 
 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 
 WHEREAS, the Northern Trust Corporation (the “Company”) has adopted the Northern Trust Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan (the
“Plan”) for the purpose of providing deferred compensation to a select group of management or highly compensated employees of the Company, effective as of May 1, 1998; and 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7.1 of the Plan, the Company has the right to amend the Plan when, in the sole discretion of the Company, such
amendment is advisable; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company deems it advisable to amend the Plan. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
  

	1.	To add the following as new Section 1.22 of the Plan: 

 “Section 1.22. ‘Investment Committee’ means the Employee Benefit Investment Committee of the Company, as constituted from time to time, which has the investment responsibilities specifically allocated to it under the
Plan.” 
  

	2.	To delete the term “Committee” from Section 4.1 of the Plan and to substitute the term “Investment Committee” therefor. 

  

	3.	To delete Section 6.1 of the Plan in its entirety and to substitute the following therefor: 

 “Section 6.1. Terms Include Authorized Delegates. Where appropriate, the terms ‘Company,’ ‘Committee’ or ‘Investment
Committee’ as used in this Plan shall also include any applicable subcommittee or any duly authorized delegate of the Company, the Committee or the Investment Committee, as the case may be. Such duly authorized delegate may be an individual or
an organization within the Company, the Committee or the Investment Committee, or may be an unrelated third party individual or organization.” 
  

	4.	To delete the term “Committee” from the heading of Section 6.2 of the Plan, to substitute the term “Committees” therefor, and to add the following as the
new last sentence of Section 6.2 of the Plan: 

 “The Investment Committee shall have those powers set forth in
Section 4.1 of the Plan.” 
  

	5.	To delete the term “Committee” from Section 6.3 of the Plan and to substitute the phrase “the Committee or the Investment Committee” therefor.










	6.	To delete the term “Committee” wherever it appears in Section 8.10 of the Plan and to substitute the phrase “the Committee or the Investment Committee”
therefor. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this amendment to be executed on its behalf this 4th of May,
2006 effective such 4th of May, 2006. 
  

			
	NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Timothy P. Moen

	Name:	 	Timothy P. Moen
	Title:	 	Executive Vice President


  

 - 2 -
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 786 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 786

Condemning the recent election of the Iranian Ambassador to the United 
Nations to the position of Vice-chair of the United Nations Disarmament 
                              Commission.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2006

Mr. Ryun of Kansas (for himself, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. McCaul of Texas, Mr. 
   McCotter, Mr. Schwarz of Michigan, Mr. Doolittle, and Mr. Foley) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                       on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Condemning the recent election of the Iranian Ambassador to the United 
Nations to the position of Vice-chair of the United Nations Disarmament 
                              Commission.

Whereas Iran reportedly is accelerating its nuclear weapons program and claims 
        to have mastered the technology for uranium enrichment;
Whereas the United Nations Security Council has noted ``with serious concern 
        Iran's resumption of uranium enrichment-related activities and its 
        suspension of cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency 
        (IAEA)'' and underlined the importance of Iran re-establishing ``full 
        and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing 
        activities, including research and development'';
Whereas Iran has suspended its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy 
        Agency (IAEA);
Whereas on April 10, 2006, the United Nations Disarmament Commission elected the 
        Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations as one of its Vice-chairs;
Whereas the United Nations Disarmament Commission exists to promote disarmament 
        and nuclear non-proliferation; and
Whereas Iran's election as one of the Vice-chairs of the United Nations 
        Disarmament Commission may further undermine the Commission from 
        effectively addressing nuclear threats: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives condemns the United 
Nations Disarmament Commission's election of the Iranian Ambassador to 
the United Nations to the position of Vice-chair of the Commission.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 1108.90 Contract.

*Contract* means a procurement transaction, as that term is defined in this subpart. A contract is a transaction into which a recipient or subrecipient enters. It is therefore distinct from the term “procurement contract,” which is a transaction that a DoD Component awards at the prime tier.
2006-0830.

#### Elyria Foundry Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm.

Public Utilities Commission, Nos. 05-70L-EL-ATA, 05-1125-EL-ATA, 05-1126-EL-AAM, and 05-1127-EL-UNC. Reported at 114 Ohio St.3d 305, 2007-Ohio-4164, 871 N.E.2d 1176. On motion for reconsideration of intervening appellee FirstEnergy Corp. Motion denied.

O’Connor and O’Donnell, JJ., dissent.
#### § 820.43 Appeal.

Within fifteen days of the issuance of a Compliance Order, the recipient of the Order may request the Secretary to rescind or modify the Order. A request shall not stay the effectiveness of a Compliance Order unless the Secretary issues an order to that effect.
#### Mae Geary, Appellant, v Joseph Lewis et al., Respondents.

of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, entered October 17, 1979, affirmed, without costs or disbursements, for the reasons set forth in the decision of Mr. Justice Quinn at Special Term. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81560-81561]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32621]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Buckhorn Exploration Project 2010, Okanogan-Wenatchee National 
Forest, Okanogan County, Washington

ACTION: Notice of Extension of Scoping Period for Environmental Impact 
Statement.

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

    Joint Lead Agencies: Forest Service, Department of Agriculture; and 
Department of Natural Resources, Washington State.
    Cooperating Agencies: Bureau of Land Management, Department of the 
Interior; and Department of Ecology, Washington State.
    On November 26, 2010, the Department of Agriculture, Forest 
Service, in cooperation with the Department of the Interior, Bureau of 
Land Management (BLM), Washington State Department of Natural Resources 
(DNR), and Washington Department of Ecology (WADOE), announced the 
intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a 
proposal by Echo Bay Exploration, Inc. (Echo Bay) to explore their 
mineral holdings northeast of Tonasket, Washington (FR 72781, Vol. 75, 
No. 227).
    That notice of intent identified January 3, 2011 as the time by 
which comments on the scope of the project must be received. That 
period is now being extended until January 18, 2011. Comments must be 
received by this new date. For further information, contact Phillip 
Christy, District Environmental Coordinator, 1 West Winesap, Tonasket, 
Washington 98855, phone (509) 486-5137, Kelly Courtright, BLM Mining 
Engineer, 1103 N. Fancher Road, Spokane, WA 99212, phone (509) 536-
1218, or Fred Greef, SEPA Coordinator, Washington State Department of 
Natural Resources, P.O. Box 7015, Olympia, WA 98504-7015, phone (360) 
902-1628. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf 
(TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-
877-8339 between 8

[[Page 81561]]

a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    Dated: December 20, 2010.
Maureen R. Hanson,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 2010-32621 Filed 12-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**MAC R1204-0109062 Old Annapolis RoadColumbia, MD 21045Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc. 

1585 Broadway

Attn: Mortgage Backed Securities

New York, New York 10036

 

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2013-C9, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2013-C9

 

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 2013 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

March 1, 2016

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President 

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
#### § 719.1 What is the purpose of this part?

This part facilitates management of retained legal counsel and contractor legal costs, including litigation and legal matter costs. It requires the contractor to develop a Legal Management Plan, to document the analysis used to decide when to utilize outside counsel, and to document what law firm or individual attorney will be engaged as outside counsel. This part also requires the contractor to document the terms of the engagement with retained legal counsel. Payment of Department-retained law firm invoices and reimbursement of contractor legal costs under covered contracts are subject to compliance with this part.
SCHEDULE



 EXHIBIT 10.22 
 Schedule 
 Setting Forth Information on 
 Two Additional and Substantially Identical Hotel Lease Agreements 
 (Substantially
Identical to Exhibit 10.10 filed herewith) 
 Each Hotel Lease Agreement (a “Lease”) has the same form as the filing specified above. Substantive
differences from that filing are limited to those specified below in Parts A, B and C: 
 A. FRANCHISES, PARTIES AND MANAGERS 
  

									
	 Hotel
	 	 Franchise
 (Section 7.2(b))
	 	 Lessor
 (Preamble)
	 	 Lessee
 (Preamble)
	 	 Manager
 (Definition Section)

					
	San Diego, California	 	Hilton Garden Inn®	 	Apple Seven Hospitality Ownership, Inc.	 	Apple Seven Hospitality Management, Inc.	 	Inn Ventures, Inc.
					
	Brownsville, Texas	 	Courtyard by Marriott®	 	Apple Seven Hospitality Texas, L.P.	 	Apple Seven Services, L.P.	 	Texas Western Management Partners, L.P.

 B. ANNUAL BASE RENTS AND LEASE COMMENCEMENT DATES 
  

						
	Hotel	  	 Annual Base Rent

(Exhibit 3.1(a) to Lease)
	  	 Commencement Date
 (Exhibit 2.1(a) to Lease)

	  	  
	 San Diego, California
	  	$	2,633,270	  	May 9, 2006
	 Brownsville, Texas
	  	 	893,196	  	June 6, 2006

 [See Part C beginning on next page] 







 C. SUITE REVENUE BREAKPOINTS (Exhibit 3.1(b) to Lease) 
 San Diego, California 
  

																																		
	 	  	Prorated 06	  	2006	  	2007	  	2008	  	2009	  	2010	  	2011	  	2012	  	2013	  	2014	  	2015
	 Yearly
 Breakpoint
	  	$	1,364,811	  	$	2,101,924	  	$	2,244,745	  	$	2,379,430	  	$	2,450,813	  	$	2,524,337	  	$	2,600,067	  	$	2,678,069	  	$	2,758,411	  	$	2,841,163	  	$	2,926,398

 Brownsville, Texas 
  

																																		
	 	  	Prorated 06	  	2006	  	2007	  	2008	  	2009	  	2010	  	2011	  	2012	  	2013	  	2014	  	2015
	 Yearly
 Breakpoint
	  	$	167,382	  	$	292,318	  	$	301,088	  	$	310,120	  	$	319,424	  	$	329,006	  	$	338,877	  	$	349,043	  	$	359,514	  	$	370,300	  	$	381,409
Order filed March 1 , 2022

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 20

- 00375

- CV

____________ PRIEUR LEARY, III AND MINTVEST CAPITAL, LTD. , Appellant s
V. COINMINT, LLC AND COINMINT LIVING TRUST, LLC , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 113 t h District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2019

- 86203



### ORDER
Appellant s Mintvest Capital , Ltd. and Pri e ur Leary, III, appeal an order signed May 7, 202 0 that den ied their motion for special appearance

. On August 21,
2020 , counsel for appe llant Prieur Leary, III filed a brief on his beh alf, b ut no brief
has been filed on behalf of Mintvest Capital , Ltd

. On Octo ber 11, 202 1, this court
issued notice that appellant Mintvest Capit al , Ltd. ’ s appeal wou ld be dismissed for

want of pro secution if it did not file a brief withi n 15 days. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). A request to e xtend time to file the brief until December 27, 2021 was granted.

A s of to day, no brief has been filed. We dismiss Mintvest Capital, Ltd. ’ s
app eal for want of prosecution.

PER CURIAM Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Spain, and Wilson.
#### § 1882.120 Are any of my Federal assistance awards exempt from this part?

This part does not apply to any award for which the Assistant Administrator for Procurement determines that the application of this part would be inconsistent with the international obligations of the United States or the laws or regulations of a foreign government.
§ 609.13 Fees and charges. ( a ) Unless explicitly authorized by statute, no funds obtained from the Federal Government, or from a loan or other instrument guaranteed by the Federal Government, may be used to pay for the Credit Subsidy Cost, the Facility Fee, the Maintenance Fee, and any other fees charged by or paid to DOE relating to Title XVII or any Guarantee thereunder. An Applicant may, at any time, use non-Federal monies to pay the Credit Subsidy Cost or DOE fees.
( b ) DOE may charge Applicants a non-refundable Facility Fee, payable on the closing date for the Loan Guarantee Agreement.
( c ) In order to encourage and supplement private lending activity DOE may collect from Borrowers for deposit in the United States Treasury a non-refundable Risk-Based Charge which, together with the interest rate on the Guaranteed Obligation that LPO determines to be appropriate, will take into account the prevailing rate of interest in the private sector for similar loans and risks. The Risk-Based Charge shall be paid at such times and in such manner as may be determined by DOE, but no less frequently than once each year, commencing with payment of a pro-rated payment on the date the Guarantee is issued. The amount of the Risk-Based Charge will be specified in the Loan Guarantee Agreement.
( d ) DOE may collect a Maintenance Fee as set forth in the Loan Guarantee Agreement. The Maintenance Fee shall accrue from the date of execution of the Loan Guarantee Agreement through the date of payment in full of the related Guaranteed Obligations. If DOE determines to collect a Maintenance Fee, it shall be paid by the Borrower each year (or portion thereof) in advance in the amount specified in the applicable Loan Guarantee Agreement.
( e ) In the event a Borrower or an Eligible Project experiences difficulty relating to technical, financial, or legal matters or other events (*e.g.,* engineering failure or financial workouts), the Borrower shall be liable as follows: ( 1 ) If such difficulty requires DOE to incur time or expenses beyond those customarily expended to monitor and administer performing loans, DOE may collect an extraordinary expenses fee from the Borrower that will reimburse DOE for such time and expenses, as determined by DOE; and
( 2 ) For all fees and expenses of DOE's independent consultants and outside counsel, to the extent that such fees and expenses are elected to be paid by DOE notwithstanding the provisions of § 609.11.
#### Michael G. Woram, Appellant, v Anna C. Gilliam, Respondent. Anna C. Woram, Respondent, v Michael G. Woram, Appellant.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered July 10,1980, granting defendant temporary alimony in the sum of $120 per week, and granting and denying other relief, affirmed, so far as appealed from, without costs. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, which is not contained in the record on appeal and which denied reargument of the order entered July 1,1980 dismissed as nonappealable, without costs. Plaintiff husband in this consolidated action for divorce appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court as granted the defendant wife alimony in the sum of $120 per week. A temporary award is bottomed upon conflicting affidavits, ofttimes based upon differing versions of the finances of the parties and the standard of living enjoyed by them during the life of the marriage. As we have noted on numerous occasions, the remedy for this sometimes unsatisfactory award is a speedy trial where the facts may be examined into in far greater detail and where a more accurate appraisal of the situation of the parties may be obtained *(Morrison v Morrison,*64 AD2d 597; *Moss v Moss,*63 AD2d 896; *Macken v Macken,*63 AD2d 874). Plaintiff is a nuclear engineer with earnings of approximately $37,000 per year. Out of this sum he is compelled to pay alimony of $50 per week to his first wife plus child *797support for a child of that marriage. Defendant is a graduate in podiatry presently serving a residency in podiatric surgery at a Philadelphia hospital where she earns $100 per week. At the argument we were informed that the matter will be reached for pretrial conference within the next week or so and should be tried in regular order within a month thereafter. Accordingly, we see no useful purpose to be served by a change of the temporary award. We note, however, that, in so concluding, we express no opinion as to the propriety of a permanent award after trial or to the amount or duration thereof in the event it be determined that defendant is entitled thereto. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Fein, Sandler, Sullivan and Bloom, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Stuart & Stuart, Inc., et al., Respondents, v. New York State Liquor Authority, Appellant.

Judgment and order of annulment (one paper), entered June 13, 1968, reversed on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the petition dismissed. Though nothing appears in the record by way of impeachment of the character and background of the petitioners themselves, when the circumstances are viewed in their entirety and there is particularly taken into account respondent’s prior experience with the prospective seller and mortgagee, a substantial basis is apparent for respondent’s determination of March 1, 1968. That determination disapproved the proposed transaction by which the petitioners would ostensibly have acquired the subject premises. Relevant comment on the history of this transaction is found in *Matter of Stuart & Stuart*v. *New York State Liq. Auth.*(29 A D 2d 176) and *Matter of Dan’s Living Room*v. *State of New York Liq. Auth.*(31 A D 2d 799, affd. 25 N Y 2d 759). The court may not, in the situation disclosed, disturb respondent’s determination, and the judgment of annulment accordingly requires reversal. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Capozzoli, Tilzer and Markewieh, JJ.; Nunez, J., dissents in the following memorandum: I dissent and vote to .affirm for the reasons stated in the excellent .opinion of Mr. Justice Henman at .Special Term. I would add that it is basically wrong to give the State Liquor Authority absolute power of life and death, which the majority is doing in this case, upon the flimsy basis that the Authority is not satisfied that the instant application is made in good faith. There is nothing in the record to justify this finding. And lastly, I would emphasize that we are concerned here principally with the rights of the petitioners, Charles E. and John A. Stuart, who are being deprived of their license because the present licensee has had its difficulties with the State Liquor Authority in connection with other licensed premises. This to me seems patently unfair.
**Exhibit 32****SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**     I, Thian Hoo Tan, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Komag, Incorporated onForm 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 2, 2005 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained insuch Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of Komag, Incorporated.         BY: /s/ Thian Hoo Tan           Thian Hoo Tan    Chief Executive Officer       I, Kathleen A. Bayless, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Komag, Incorporated onForm 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 2, 2005 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained insuch 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of Komag, Incorporated.         BY: /s/ Kathleen A. Bayless           Kathleen A. Bayless    Chief Financial Officer       This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemedfiled by Komag, Incorporated for purposes of Section 18 of the Security Exchange Act of 1934, asamended. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toKomag, Incorporated and will be retained by Komag, Incorporated and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.