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








FIRST AMENDMENT TO
PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
(COCHRAN BYPASS – BI-LO STORE)


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”), dated as of October 27, 2017, is made by and between TNP SRT PORTFOLIO II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Seller”) and KAMIN REALTY LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Buyer”).


		
	A.
	Seller and Buyer are parties to that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement dated September 20, 2017 (the “Purchase Agreement”).




		
	B.
	Seller and Buyer desire to amend certain provisions of the Purchase Agreement as set forth herein.




NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, their mutual covenants and promises set forth herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Seller and Buyer hereby agree as follows:


		
	1.
	Defined Terms.  Capitalized terms used in this Amendment shall have the meanings set forth in the Purchase Agreement except as otherwise defined herein.  




		
	2.
	Reinstatement of Purchase Agreement.  The Purchase Agreement is hereby revived and reinstated and, as amended hereby, continues in full force and effect, as binding on the parties thereto.  The provisions of this Amendment shall control in the event of any conflicts with the provisions of the Purchase Agreement.




		
	3.
	Closing Date.  The definition of “Closing Date” is hereby amended to mean Tuesday, October 31, 2017.




		
	4.
	Execution of Amendment.  This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be part of one and the same instrument, which counterparts will be transmitted to each party to the Purchase Agreement by email transmission of signature pages.  This Amendment shall not be effective or binding upon either party until and unless Seller and Buyer have each delivered a signed signature page to this Amendment to the other party.




[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGES]







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Seller and Buyer have executed this Amendment as of the date first set forth above.


SELLER:


TNP SRT PORTFOLIO II, LLC, 
a Delaware limited liability company




By:                         
Name:                      
Title:                          


[SIGNATURES CONTINUE ON FOLLOWING PAGE]





BUYER:


KAMIN REALTY LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company




By:                         
Name:                      
Title:                          








First Amendment to
Purchase and Sale Agreement


902993.1
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

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON STIPULATED MOTION 

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE - 1

(Julio Perez-Garcia; CR05-00325-JLR)

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, Washington 98101

(206) 553-1100

JUDGE JAMES L. ROBART

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JULIO PEREZ-GARCIA,

Defendant.

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR 05-325 JLR

ORDER ON STIPULATED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

THE COURT having considered the unopposed motion of the defendant, the

records and files herein, the Court hereby makes the following findings:

1. The Court finds that a failure to grant the continuance would deny counsel

the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise

of due diligence, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii).

2. The Court further finds that the ends of justice will be served by ordering a

continuance in this case, that a continuance is necessary to insure effective trial

preparation and that these factors outweigh the best interests of the public in a more

speedy trial, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A).

//

//

Case 2:05-cr-00325-JLR Document 28 Filed 02/21/06 Page 1 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

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON STIPULATED MOTION 

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE - 2

(Julio Perez-Garcia; CR05-00325-JLR)

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, Washington 98101

(206) 553-1100

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the trial date is extended from March 27,

2006 to April 24, 2006.

DONE this 17th day of February, 2006.

A 

JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Presented by:

s/Nancy Tenney

 WSBA No. 35304

 Attorney for Julio Perez-Garcia

 Federal Public Defender’s Office

 1601 Fifth Ave., Suite 700

 Seattle, WA 98101

 206/553-1100

 206/553-0120

 Nancy_Tenney@fd.org 

s/Patricia Lally

WSBA No. 28910

Assistant United States Attorney

700 Stewart St., Suite 5220

Seattle, WA 98101-1271

Patricia.Lally@usdoj.gov

Case 2:05-cr-00325-JLR Document 28 Filed 02/21/06 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Pablo Branford, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 844]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia Williams, J.), rendered September 30, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

There is no merit to defendant’s claim that a mistrial should have been declared when a prosecution witness stated, in response to a defense question, that he had seen defendant’s parole papers. The comment was fleeting, and any prejudice was dispelled by the court’s sustaining of defense counsel’s objection to the witness’s answer and instruction to the jury to disregard it *(People v Owens,*214 AD2d 480; *People v Maisonet,*209 AD2d 297, 298, *Iv denied*85 NY2d 864). Nor does the record support defendant’s claim, which might have been better developed by a postjudgment motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 *(see, People v Love,*57 NY2d 998, 1000), that a court officer was present in the jury room during deliberations involving experimentation with the gun seized from defendant upon his arrest, or that such presence, assuming it to be a fact, was other than ministerial in nature, and therefore improper (CPL 310.10; *People v Buxton,*192 AD2d 289, *Iv denied*82 NY2d 752). We have reviewed defendant’s claim that he was denied a fair trial by the prosecutor’s summation, and find it unpreserved as a matter of law and in any event without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

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 on Form 10-Q of BJs Wholesale Club, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended July 29, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, Michael T. Wedge, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the undersigneds knowledge:

(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 results of operations of the Company.



|                         |  |                        
|------------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Dated: September 6, 2006 |  | /S/ MICHAEL T. WEDGE   
|                         |  | Michael T. Wedge       
|                         |  | Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350





The
undersigned officer of ALLIED HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, INC. (the "Company"), hereby
certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the Company’s fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.




/s/
      Daniel C. DunnDaniel
      C. DunnVice
      President, Chief Financial Officer &
  Secretary


November
5, 2010
SUNNYSIDE
FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF IRVINGTON


 


SUNNYSIDE
BANCORP, INC.


 





 






 


AMENDMENT
NUMBER ONE


TO
THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH EDWARD LIPKUS


 





 






 


This
Amendment Number One (the “Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) entered
into between Sunnyside Federal Savings and Loan Association of Irvington (the “Association”) and Edward Lipkus
(the “Executive”) is made by the Association and the Executive, effective as of March 20, 2018 (the
“Effective Date”).


 


WHEREAS,
the Agreement was entered effective as of July 28, 2015; and


 


WHEREAS,
Sunnyside Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) is a signatory to the Agreement for the purpose of guaranteeing the
Association’s performance under the Agreement; and


 


WHEREAS,
upon the recommendation of the Compensation Committees of the Association and the Company, the Association and the Executive
desire to amend the Agreement to provide for the automatic renewal of the term of the Agreement upon a Change in Control; and


 


WHEREAS,
pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Agreement, the Agreement may be amended by an instrument in writing signed by the parties.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, this Amendment is hereby adopted as follows:


 


	 	1.	Section 2of the
    Agreement is hereby amended to add a new Section 2(e) to read in its entirety as follows:






 


“(e)
Automatic Renewal of Term upon Change in Control. Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon the legal closing date of a Change
in Control, as such term is defined in this Agreement, the term of this Agreement shall be automatically extended, without any
further action, so that it shall terminate twelve months following the legal closing date on which the Change in Control occurs.”


 


	 	2.	Section 5(c) of
    the Agreement is hereby amended to add the following sentence immediately after the end of Section 5(c) of the Agreement:






 


“(c)
In addition, upon the occurrence of a Change in Control, Executive shall be fully vested in all restricted stock awards granted
to Executive under the Company’s 2014 Equity Incentive Plan or other benefit plans.”


 




    	 



     


    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, a duly authorized officer of the Association and the Company has executed this Amendment as of the Effective
Date.


 


	 	SUNNYSIDE
                                         FEDERAL SAVINGS AND

                                                                     LOAN
                                         ASSOCIATION OF IRVINGTON

	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    William Boeckelman                 
	 	Name:	
    William Boeckelman
	 	Title:	Director
	 	 	 
	 	SUNNYSIDE
    BANCORP, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ William Boeckelman
	 	Name:	
    William Boeckelman
	 	Title:	Director


 





	 	EXECUTIVE
	 	 
	 	/s/
    Edward Lipkus
	 	Edward
    Lipkus
	 	Vice
    President and Chief Financial Officer




 




    	 	2
From: rathooch56@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:50:09 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

janice thibodeaux

Nashville, GA 31639
AFS-14-084-E September 12, 2014

Exemption No. 10968 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-1127

Mr. Dallas Cormier, SD1173 San Diego Gas & Electric, Sempra Energy

101 Ash Street San Diego, CA 92101

Dear Mr. Cormier:

On April 1, 2014, the FAA granted San Diego Gas & Electric (SDGE) an exemption from §§ 91.9(b)(2) and 91.203(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption allows SDGE to operate the InstantEye MK-2 N544L and N500VD unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) without carrying and displaying the airworthiness certificate, registration, flight manual, and any other required documentation onboard the aircraft.

Based on a recent FAA Memorandum subject “Interpretation regarding whether certain required documents may be kept at an unmanned aircraft’s control station”, (copy enclosed)dated August 8, 2014, we find this relief is not necessary. Accordingly, Docket No. FAA2013-1127 is being closed.

Sincerely,

/s/

William E. Crozier Assistant Manager, UAS Integration Office

Enclosure
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

ORDER ALLOWING

INVERVENTION - 1

CAREW LAW OFFICE

5450 California Ave. SW, Suite 101

Seattle, Washington 98136

Telephone: (206) 587-0590

Fax: (206) 587-2388

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

M/V MOMMA, Official No. 250424, its

Engines, Machinery, Appurtenances, etc. 

in rem, and B.B. MOMMA PACKERS, 

INC., in personam,

Defendants

 vs.

JESSE ENGINEERING COMPANY,

a Washington corporation, 

 Intervening Plaintiff

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

IN ADMIRALTY

CAUSE NO. C05-5668RBL

ORDER ALLOWING INTERVENTION

BY JESSE ENGINEERING COMPANY

THIS MATTER has come before the Court upon Motion of Intervening Plaintiff,

Jesse Engineering Company. Having reviewed the file, the memorandum of Jesse

Engineering, and any objections, and it appearing that Jesse Engineering has stated

maritime lien claims against the vessel in rem for moorage and warehousing, and it

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 

Case 3:05-cv-05668-RBL Document 34 Filed 11/28/05 Page 1 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

ORDER ALLOWING

INVERVENTION - 2

CAREW LAW OFFICE

5450 California Ave. SW, Suite 101

Seattle, Washington 98136

Telephone: (206) 587-0590

Fax: (206) 587-2388

further appearing that disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or

impede the applicant's ability to protect its interest in the vessel, 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that movant Jesse Engineering Company is

permitted to intervene in this action; 

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to LAR 131(b), that the clerk shall

forthwith deliver uncertified copies of the order and of the complaint in intervention to

the marshal who shall deliver the copies to the custodian of the property. The

claimant/intervenor Jesse Engineering Company will thereafter be subject to the

rights and obligations of parties and the property shall stand arrested, attached or

garnished by the claimant/intervenor Jesse Engineering Company;

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the complaint in intervention may be filed,

and claimant/intervenor shall serve same upon the in personam defendant.

DONE this 28th

Presented by:

 day of November, 2005.

RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

A _______________________________

SHANE C. CAREW, WSBA 10988

Attorney for Claimant/Intervenor Jesse Engineering Company

Case 3:05-cv-05668-RBL Document 34 Filed 11/28/05 Page 2 of 2
Before Chief Judge Rao,

August 22, 1968

No. R68/27.

reappraisement R65/20402 (San Francisco).

#### Lollytogs, Ltd., *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandie and issues involved herein are the same in all material respects as those in Lollytogs, *Ltd.*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 608, Reap Dec. 11073), the court found and held that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise (children’s wearing apparel) and that such value is the appraised unit value, net packed, less the commission of Swedish Trading Co., Ltd., of Hong Kong as indicated on the invoices.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 565 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for division 

of the question on the legislative proposals involved to allow separate 

votes on disparate matters. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 24, 2007 

Mr. SALI (for himself, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. PITTS, 

Mr. GOODE, Mr. AKIN, Mr. HERGER, Mr. PRICE of Georgia, Mr. LINDER, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. SHADEGG, Mr. 

LAMBORN, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. PEARCE, Mrs. 

BLACKBURN, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. PAUL, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. 

COLE of Oklahoma, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. FORTUN ̃O, Mr. FEENEY, Mr. 

PENCE, Mrs. MYRICK, Mrs. DRAKE, and Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

provide for division of the question on the legislative 

proposals involved to allow separate votes on disparate 

matters. 

1 Resolved, That clause 5(a) of rule XVI of the Rules 

2 of the House of Representatives is amended by inserting 

3 ‘‘(1)’’ after ‘‘(a)’’ and by inserting at the end the following 

4 new subparagraph: 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 565 IH 

1 ‘‘(2) In deciding upon the question of division, the 

2 division shall depend on the legislative propositions in3 volved and not upon grammatical structure.’’. 

4 SEC. 2. Clause 6(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

5 House of Representatives is amended by striking the pe6 riod at the end of subparagraph (2) and inserting ‘‘; or’’ 

7 and by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: 

8 ‘‘(3) a rule or order that would waive clause 5 

9 of rule XVI.’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
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

1

 Even if plaintiff’s motion was not moot, the Court notes that it was filed nearly three months

after the filing of plaintiff’s original response and plaintiff does not argue that this new material was

unavailable to him prior to filing his original response. It is therefore unlikely that the Court would have

granted such a motion even if it was noted prior to the Court issuing its opinion. Nor does the Court

believe the supplemental material would have had any material bearing on the outcome of the case.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

JERRY HUDSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, et al.,

Defendants.

 No. C05-01735RSL

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to File Supplemental

Authority” (Dkt. #29). Though the motion is noted for August 10, 2007, the Court has already

entered an order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss and for summary judgment. See Dkt.

#31. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore DENIED as moot.1

DATED this 9th day of August, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01735-RSL Document 33 Filed 08/09/07 Page 1 of 1
August 17, 1959

No. 63312.

Suits 4999/5000.

#### United States *v.*F. Lunning, Inc., and Traders Service Corp.; and F. Lunning, Inc., and Traders Service Corp. *v.*United States.

Appeal dismissed May 8, 1959.
Case 3:05-cv-05740-RBL Document 7 Filed 11/15/05 Page 1 of 5
Case 3:05-cv-05740-RBL Document 7 Filed 11/15/05 Page 2 of 5
Case 3:05-cv-05740-RBL Document 7 Filed 11/15/05 Page 3 of 5
Case 3:05-cv-05740-RBL Document 7 Filed 11/15/05 Page 4 of 5
Case 3:05-cv-05740-RBL Document 7 Filed 11/15/05 Page 5 of 5
TEXT FOR RFI E-MAIL

Dear Mr. Oleske

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition 

(Docket No. FAA−2015−3233). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Your petition references the material listed below, however the material was not 

submitted for the record. Please provide a copy of the following referenced materials:

o Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM)

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at 

www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or 

electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any 

further, we must receive the information described above by 12/7/15. If we do not receive the 

information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-4549.

Sincerely,

/S/

Michael J. Cameron

Program Analyst