alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WRI-2015.03.31-10Q-Exh10.2






Exhibit 10.2






March 11, 2015




SIXTH AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE




This Sixth Amendment to Promissory Note (this “Amendment”) is to be effective as of the close of business March 11, 2015, or as otherwise stated herein.


WHEREAS, the undersigned are parties to that certain Promissory Note (as the same has been and may be hereafter renewed, amended, modified, or extended, the “Note”) dated as of March 12, 2009 in the original amount of $12,910,386.14, made by WEINGARTEN REALTY INVESTORS (“Weingarten”), a Texas real estate investment trust, and payable to the order of RELIANCE TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee of the Master Nonqualified Plan Trust under the Weingarten Realty Investors Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan and Weingarten Realty Investors Retirement Benefit Restoration Plan (“Reliance”); and


WHEREAS, the scheduled maturity date of the Note is March 12, 2015; and 


WHEREAS, the parties desire to extend the maturity date under the Note to a date one year from the date of its currently-scheduled maturity; and 


WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Note to reflect this change and desire to memorialize the outstanding balance due under the Note as of March 11, 2015;


NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed:


		
	1.
	The second paragraph of the Note shall be revised to be and read as follows:




“The entire unpaid balance of the Note, including accrued interest, shall be due and payable March 12, 2016.” 


		
	2.
	As of the close of business March 11, 2015, the balance due under the Note, including accrued interest, is $9,378,645.58. 




In all other respects, the Note is hereby ratified and confirmed. 


This instrument may be executed by the parties individually or in combination, in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall together constitute one and the same instrument. Individuals authorized to enter into this amendment on behalf of Weingarten are identified on Exhibit A hereto.





Sixth Amendment to Promissory Note - 1








	
				
	 
	 
	 
	RELIANCE TRUST COMPANY

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	By:
	/s/ Kimberly Lowe

	 
	 
	Its (Title):
	SVP

	 
	 
	Date:
	3/9/15










	
				
	 
	 
	 
	WEINGARTEN REALTY INVESTORS

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	By:
	/s/ Stephen C. Richter

	 
	 
	Its (Title):
	Executive VP & CFO

	 
	 
	Date:
	 




                            





Sixth Amendment to Promissory Note - 2




Exhibit A


Individuals Authorized to Enter into the Sixth Amendment to Promissory Note 
on behalf of Weingarten




Andrew M. Alexander
Stephen C. Richter

Sixth Amendment to Promissory Note - 3
§ 21.4020 Two or more programs. ( a ) *Limit on training under two or more programs.* The aggregate period for which any person may receive assistance under two or more of the following laws may not exceed 48 months (or the part-time equivalent): ( 1 ) Part VII or VIII, Veterans Regulations numbered 1(a), as amended:
( 2 ) Title II of the Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952;
( 3 ) The War Orphans' Educational Assistance Act of 1956;
( 4 ) 38 U.S.C. chapters 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36;
( 5 ) 10 U.S.C. chapters 106a, 1606, and 1607;
( 6 ) Section 903 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1981,
( 7 ) The Hostage Relief Act of 1980, and
( 8 ) The Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986. (Authority: 10 U.S.C. 16136(b), 16166(b); 38 U.S.C. 3034(a), 3241(a), 3323(a), 3695(a))
( b ) *Limit on combining assistance received under Chapter 31 with assistance under another program.* No person may receive assistance under Chapter 31, Title 38 U.S.C. in combination with any provisions of law listed in paragraph (a) of this section in excess of 48 months (or the part-time equivalent) unless the Department of Veterans Affairs determines that additional months of benefits under Chapter 31 are necessary to accomplish the purpose of the veteran's rehabilitation program.
(Authority: 10 U.S.C. 16136(b), 16166(b); 38 U.S.C. 3034(a), 3241(a), 3323(a), 3695(b))
[48 FR 37976, Aug. 22, 1983, as amended at 51 FR 16316, May 2, 1986; 57 FR 29800, July 7, 1992; 61 FR 20728, May 8, 1996; 74 FR 14666, Mar. 31, 2009]
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

MANUEL MENDEZ-HERNANDEZ, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-3273

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed March 20, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court 

for Hillsborough County; Mark Kiser, 

Judge.

Manuel Mendez-Hernandez, pro se. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Leonard v. State, 192 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); 

McDonald v. State, 133 So. 3d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Hughes v. State, 22 So. 3d 132 

(Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Waiter v. State, 965 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Steward v. 

State, 931 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Haynes v. State, 106 So. 3d 481 (Fla. 5th 

DCA 2013); Labadie v. State, 840 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Paul v. State, 830 

So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Harris v. State, 789 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). 

NORTHCUTT, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM,JJ., Concur.
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  L INDA A NN T YLER ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. W ILLIAM M. W ATES , Mail Clerk; D EBRA D RENNEN , Class Chairman; M ONICA C OUNTS , State Class Supervisor; M ICHAELO SPSHAL , Cooper Trust Account; G ERALDINE No. 03-7187



#  P. M IRO , Assistant Director; Q UEEN E. H URLEY , Sergeant; M ARY J. T INCH , Sergeant; E DNA F AGGART , Business Manager; J EFFREY D ESHAE P RICE , Sergeant; D EBRA A LSTON , Captain; D IANTHA L ITWER , Grievance Coordinator, Defendants-Appellees. 

# 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron M. Currie, District Judge. (CA-02-3146-8-22) Submitted: November 26, 2003 Decided: December 23, 2003 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.COUNSELLinda Ann Tyler, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, MCDONALD, PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM: Linda Ann Tyler appeals the district court’s order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied andadvised Tyler that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Tyler filed only general objections. She made general complaints about the magistrate judge’s handling of the case, but she did not state how the magistrate judge’s actions prejudicedher. Importantly, she did not dispute that she failed to submit evidence in contravention of the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment; she did not allege that she actually suffered a physical injury; she did not mention any Defendants by name; and she did not show how her allegations rose to constitutional levels. A general objection to the entirety of the magistrate judge’s report is tantamount to a failure to object. Howard v. Secretary of HHS , 932 F.2d 505, 508-09 (6th Cir. 1991). A failure to object waives appellate review. Wells v. Shriner Hosp. , 109 F.3d 198, 201 (4th Cir. 1997). As Tyler waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections 2 T YLERv. W ATESafter receiving proper notice, we affirm the judgment of the district court.We dispense with oral argument, because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the district court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3 T YLERv. W ATES
§ 150.40 When do I have investment discretion? ( a ) *General.* You have investment discretion when you have, with respect to a fiduciary account, the sole or shared authority to determine what securities or other assets to purchase or sell on behalf of that account. It does not matter whether you have exercised this authority.
( b ) *Delegations.* You retain investment discretion if you delegate investment discretion to another. You also have investment discretion if you receive delegated authority to exercise investment discretion from another.
#### Charles Mierisch, Respondent, *v.*The Mount Morris Bank, Appellant.

Appeal from an order denying an application for a discovery and inspection of certain checks and orders.

James J. Allen, for appellant.

Henry W. Heifer, for respondent.

McCarthy, J.

An appeal from an order, dated January 30, 1900, denying an application for a discovery and inspection of certain checks and orders, described in the petition herein.

The amended complaint and the answer to said amended complaint read in support of the motion show clearly what the issues were. The order for a discovery and inspection, under the circumstances presented, was clearly within the sound discretion of the court, and was a means, among other things, of ascertaining the substance of this action, to wit: whether the four checks alluded to were genuine or not. We think the court should have permitted the discovery and inspection as applied for by the defendant.

The examination of the four checks specially in dispute would and must materially aid in the discovery of the points involved in this action.

*744They were, and have been for a long time, in possession of the plaintiff, and it must be upon an examination and inspection of these papers before -trial that the defendant could at all successfully defend this action.

We think the application was fair and reasonable. There is no doubt from the papers that it was made in good faith and ought to be granted.

Order appealed from is hereby reversed, with costs, and an order for the discovery and inspection herein is hereby granted as to the alleged forged checks and all others admitted to be in the plaintiff’s possession, and the trial of the action stayed, pending such discovery and inspection.

O’Dwyer, J., concurs.

Order reversed, with costs, and order for discovery and inspection granted and trial of action stayed, pending such discovery and inspection.
#### § 192.230 Members' voting eligibility.

A savings association determines members' eligibility to vote by setting a voting record date. The savings association must set a voting record date that is not more than 60 calendar days nor less than 20 calendar days before its meeting, unless the savings association is State-chartered and State law requires a different voting record date.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 15.1

Deloitte & Touche LLP
333 Clay Street
Suite 2300
Houston, Texas 77002

May 12, 2000

Sterling Chemicals Holdings, Inc.
1200 Smith Street, Suite 1900
Houston, Texas 77002

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of Sterling Chemicals Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries for the
three-month and six-month periods ended March 31, 2000 and 1999, as indicated in
our report dated May 11, 2000; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed
no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2000, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-30917 for Sterling
Chemicals Holdings, Inc. on Form S-3 and in Registration Statement No. 333-52795
for Sterling Chemicals Holdings, Inc. on Form S-8.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statements prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43521

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

JEDEDIAH RAE HAMMOND ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 579

Filed: June 22, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin Falls County. Hon. Randy J. Stoker , District Judge.

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed

.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Maya P. Waldron , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respond ent.

________________________________________________ Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Jedediah Rae Hammon d pled guilty to felony driving under the influence . I.C. § 18

-
8004 , 18

- 8005(5) . The district court sentenced Hammond to a unified term of seven years, with
a minimum period of confinement of three years

. The district court suspended Hammond’s
sentence and placed him on probation. Hammond thereafter admitted to violating the terms of
his probation several times. Ultimately, the district court revoked probation , order exe cution of
Hammond’s original sentence, but retained jurisdiction. After Hammond’s participation in the
rider program, the district court relinquished jurisdiction. Hammond filed an I.C.R 35 motion for

reduction of his sentence , which the district court denied. Hammond appeals.2

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency,

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton , 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d

23, 24 (2006); St ate v. Allbee , 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In
presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of
new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the

motion. State v. Huffman , 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the
record, including any new information submitted with Hammond ’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude

no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district co urt’s order denying Hammond ’s

Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Saint Kitts and Nevis National Day

# 									Saint Kitts and Nevis National Day							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

September 19, 2023

On behalf of the United States of America, I congratulate the people and government of Saint Kitts and Nevis on the 40th anniversary of your independence.

The United States and Saint Kitts and Nevis enjoy a close relationship founded on respect for democratic values and our shared commitment to combat global challenges. Through the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative, the U.S.- Caribbean Partnership to Address the Climate Crisis (PACC 2030) and other initiatives, we work together to combat the climate crisis, promote regional security, bolster access to clean energy and food security, and encourage economic prosperity for our peoples.

As we celebrate 40 years of our bilateral relations, I look forward to continuing and building on our strong ties in the years to come.

Tags

Bureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsOffice of the SpokespersonSaint Kitts and NevisThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105-2498

 

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: OTAQ Meetings for 2012 NCP Rulemaking

FROM: Byron Bunker

TO: Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-1000

DATE: 20 August 2012

After issuances of EPA’s notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) representatives of various

engine manufacturers met with me and other representatives of EPA’s Office of Transportation 

and Air Quality (OTAQ), to discuss the 2012 Nonconformance Penalty (NCP) proposal. This 

memorandum summarizes these meetings which occurred at EPA headquarters or via phone.

On March 8, 2012, representatives of Volvo including Executive VP for North America Dennis 

Slagle, Jan-Eric Sundgren – Exec VP Volvo Group, and Jonathan Miller – VP Government 

Relations and Public Affairs met with OTAQ to discuss the NCP rulemaking. Representatives of 

EPA included Margo Oge, Office Director – OTAQ. During the meeting Volvo raised issues 

consistent with the written comments they would later file including arguments that an NCP was 

unwarranted under these circumstances, and that if granted, the NCP penalty should be 

substantially higher. Volvo was encouraged to provide written comments supplementing their 

statements which they did.

On March 22, 2012, representatives of Cummins met with OTAQ to discuss the rulemaking. 

Representatives from Cummins included John Wall, Chief Technical Officer for Cummins. 

Representatives of EPA included Margo Oge, Office Director –OTAQ. Cummins repeated 

concerns it raised at the public hearing that the NCP levels were too low and presented a cost 

analysis that provided evidence for a higher penalty.

On May 17, 2012 representatives of Navistar held a phone call with EPA representatives to 

discuss the rulemaking. Steve Covey, Larry Levine and Patrick Charbonneau participated in the 

meeting for Navistar. Michael Horowitz, Justing Greuel, Gregory Orehowsky and I represented 

EPA in the meeting. During the meeting Navistar’s inability to produce compliant products in a 

timely manner was discussed including confidential information regarding specific product 

schedules for Navistar’s 11, 13 and 15 liter engine products, and their need for NCPs. Navistar 

later supplemented their statements with written comments on May 22, 2012 consistent with the 

information Navistar shared during the conference call.

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION
# C_2015092EN.01003401.xml

| 19.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/34

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

of 29 August 2014

in Case E-8/13

Abelia v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Proper representation before the Court — State aid — Alleged aid granted to lessors of premises to public schools — Decision not to open the formal investigation procedure — Legal interest — Status as interested party — Competitive link)

(2015/C 92/08)

In Case E-8/13, Abelia, supported by Akademiet Bergen AS, Akademiet Drammen AS, Akademiet Sandnes AS, Akademiet Oslo AS, Akademiet VGS Molde AS and Akademiet VGS Ålesund AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority — Application for the annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 160/13/COL of 24 April 2013 on alleged aid granted to lessors of premises to public schools, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 29 August 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

| 1. | dismisses the application as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the application as inadmissible.

| 2. | orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the defendant.

---
<PAGE>



                               POWER OF ATTORNEY



         KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby
constitutes and appoints each of Wade H. Nichols III, Robert K. Kretzman,
Lawrence E. Kreider and Joram C. Salig or any of them, each acting alone, his
true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution,
for him and his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, in connection
with the REVLON WORLDWIDE CORPORATION (the "Corporation") Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996 (the "Form 10-K") under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including, without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, to sign the Form 10-K in the name and on behalf of
the Corporation or on behalf of the undersigned as a director or officer of the
Corporation, and any amendments to the Form 10-K and any instrument, contract,
document or other writing, of or in connection with the Form 10-K or amendments
thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents
in connection therewith, including this power of attorney, with the Securities
and Exchange Commission and any applicable securities exchange or securities
self-regulatory body, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each
acting alone, 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 said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone,
or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed these presents this
17th day of February, 1997.



                                                     /s/ Howard Gittis
                                                     ----------------
                                                     HOWARD GITTIS
# C_2008180EN.01001701.xml

| 17.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/17

---

Announcement from Norway concerning Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons

Announcement of invitation to apply for petroleum production licences on the Norwegian Continental Shelf — Awards in Predefined Areas 2008

(2008/C 180/09)

The Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy hereby announces an invitation to apply for petroleum production licences on the Norwegian Continental Shelf in accordance with Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorizations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons (Article 3(2)(a)).

Applications for petroleum production licences shall be submitted to:

| The Ministry of Petroleum and Energy |
| --- |
| PO Box 8148 Dep. |
| N-0033 Oslo |

The Ministry of Petroleum and Energy

PO Box 8148 Dep.

N-0033 Oslo

by 3 October 2008.

The award of petroleum production licences in the Awards in Predefined Areas 2008 on the Norwegian Continental Shelf is planned to take place end of 2008/early 2009.

Further information including detailed maps of available areas may be obtained by visiting www.npd.no/apa2008 or contacting the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, tel. (47) 22 24 62 09.

---