alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
12.31.2014 - Ex 10.394 Amendment to Second Amended Note Brogdon










AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED NOTE


THIS AMENDMENT TO  SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED NOTE (this
“Amendment”) is made and entered into as of the 25th day of March, 2015 by and between CHRISTOPHER F. BROGDON (“Brogdon”) and ADCARE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., a
Georgia corporation (“AdCare”).  Any capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Note (as defined below).


W I T N E S S E T H:


WHEREAS, on October 10, 2014, Brogdon executed and delivered to AdCare that certain Second Amended and Restated Note in the amount of $268,663.00 (the “Note”).


WHEREAS, Brogdon and AdCare desire to modify and amend the Note and desire to set forth their agreement in writing.


NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Brogdon and AdCare agree that the Note shall be modified and amended in the following respects.


1.The Note is hereby amended by deleting the third and fourth paragraphs in their entirety and by inserting the following in lieu thereof:


The Principal balance plus accrued interest (if any) shall be due and payable on the earlier of: (i) December 31, 2015 or (ii) the closing of the sale of the Riverchase Facility (as defined in that certain Agreement dated as of February 28, 2014, as amended, between Brogdon and his affiliated entities, on the one hand, and AdCare and its affiliated entities on the other hand).


		
	2.
	In all other respects, the Note is hereby ratified and confirmed in its entirety.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Brogdon and AdCare have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the date first written hereinabove.






[Intentionally Blank; Signatures on Following Page]

HNZW/502665_1.docx/3583-1


















BROGDON:




                            	
	
	 

	/s/ Christopher F. Brogdon

	Christopher F. Brogdon

	 








                            










ADCARE:




ADCARE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.,
a Georgia corporation




                            	
		
	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ William McBride

	Name:
	William McBride

	Title:
	CEO














































2

HNZW/502665_1.docx/3583-1
##### 



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
  (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.
 March 15, 2006
    By:
    /s/ Rocco B. CommissoRocco B. CommissoChief Executive Officer By:
    /s/ Mark E. StephanMark E. StephanChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.11

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of the Frontier Dynamic Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his 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 Frontier Dynamic Series.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                     
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                         
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Frontier Dynamic Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                                                                       
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                                        
|Brent Bales                                                                                                                                            
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund                                                                                                                
|Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Frontier Dynamic Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund                                                      

Date: November 11, 2010
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 17, 2020

No. 04-19-00437-CV

CITY OF HELOTES,

Appellant

v.

Jean Marie PAGE,

Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CI01629

Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

The panel has considered the appellant’s motion for rehearing, and the motion is hereby 

DENIED.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 17th day of January, 2020.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz,

Clerk of Court
##### 



Exhibit 12
 MSW ENERGY HOLDINGS LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(Unaudited, in thousands of dollars)
 For the Three Months EndedMarch 31,2006
    
    
    2005EARNINGS:Pre-tax income from continuing operations before minority interests
    
    $
    2,531
    
    
    $
    2,862Add:Fixed charges
    
    
    15,466
    
    
    
    16,913Earnings, as adjusted
    
    $
    17,997
    
    
    $
    19,775FIXED CHARGES:Interest expense
    
    $
    15,466
    
    
    $
    16,913Fixed charges
    
    $
    15,466
    
    
    $
    16,913RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES:
    
    
    1.16
    x
    
    
    1.17
    x
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 815 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 815

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to make certain improvements 
 relating to the eligibility of veterans to receive reimbursement for 
   emergency treatment furnished through the Veterans Community Care 
                    program, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Removing Extraneous Loopholes 
Insuring Every Veteran Emergency Act'' or the ``RELIEVE Act''.

SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR EMERGENCY 
              TREATMENT FURNISHED TO VETERANS.

    (a) Eligibility Requirements.--Section 1725(b)(2)(B) of title 38, 
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``, unless such emergency 
treatment was furnished during the 60-day period following the date on 
which the veteran enrolled in the health care system specified in 
subparagraph (A), in which case no requirement for prior receipt of 
care shall apply'' before the period.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to emergency treatment furnished on or after the 
date that is one year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN HOUSING LOAN FEES.

    The loan fee table in section 3729(b)(2) of title 38, United States 
Code, is amended by striking ``November 14, 2031'' each place it 
appears and inserting ``December 28, 2031''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 7, 2023.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 815

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to make certain improvements 
 relating to the eligibility of veterans to receive reimbursement for 
   emergency treatment furnished through the Veterans Community Care 
                    program, and for other purposes.
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 21-0141

SAMANTHA VULES, SHERI 

ESTENSON, et al.,

 Plaintiffs and Appellants,

 v.

THIES & TALLE MANAGEMENT, INC., 

THIES & TALLE ENTERPRISES, INC., 

ALMANOR INVESTORS LIMITED 

PARTNERSHIP and JOHN DOES 1-4,

 Defendants and Appellees.

ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parties having failed to jointly 

and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c),

IT IS ORDERED THAT Elizabeth Brennerman, 1022 Chestnut, Helena, MT 

59601, whose name appears next on the list of attorneys desiring appointment as 

mediators for Money Judgments appeals which is maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 

7(4)(e), is hereby appointed to conduct the mediation process required by M.R.App.P., 

7(5), and 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time periods set forth in M.R.App.P., 

7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appointment.

A true copy of this order is being mailed to counsel of record for the parties, or to 

the parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof.

DATED this April 14, 2021.

Bowen Greenwood, Clerk of the Supreme Court

c: Christopher W. Froines, Ben Desmond Kappelman, Elizabeth Brenneman

04/14/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0141
No. 61927.

#### Gehrig, Hoban & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 315421-K (New York).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
#### Benjamin Porter, *Executor, etc., Respondent, v.*Reuben E Perry, *Appellant.*

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Hardin, J.
Albany

Atlanta

Brussels

Denver

Los Angeles

Miami

New York

1676 International Drive • Penthouse

McLean, VA 22102

Tel: 703.336.8800

mckennalong.com

Northern Virginia

Orange County

Rancho Santa Fe

San Diego

San Francisco

Seoul

Washington, DC

Mark E. McKinnon

703.336.8708

Matthew J. Clark

703.336.8714

Email Address

mmckinnon@mckennalong.com

mclark@mckennalong.com

September 20, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Delivery of Operating Documents (Docket No. FAA-2015-3022)

To Whom it May Concern:

As you are aware, this office represents the University of Idaho regarding the abovereferenced Petition for Exemption, in which the University of Idaho seeks regulatory relief to allow 

commercial operation of small unmanned aircraft system. Please accept this letter as confirmation

that the University of Idaho operating documents were submitted electronically via e-mail to 

333exemptions@faa.gov. 

If you have any questions or require any additional information to process the University of 

Idaho Petition, please do not hesitate to contact us. 

Very truly yours,

Mark E. McKinnon

Counsel for the University of Idaho.
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 15, 2024.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-24-00060-CV

IN THE MATTER OF M.B.

On Appeal from the 313th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2022-01558J

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an attempted appeal from an order signed December 8, 2023 by a 

juvenile court waiving its exclusive original jurisdiction in the above trial court 

proceeding and transferring a child to a criminal district court for criminal 

proceedings.

1

 See Juvenile Justice Code, Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 54.02(a), 

56.01(c)(1)(A). The notice of appeal was due December 28, 2023. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 26.1(b); Sup. Ct. Misc. Docket No. 15-9156 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2015). Appellant’s 

1 Appellant has another appeal pending of a separate order taking the same actions with a 

different trial-court proceeding originally before the same juvenile court in case number

14-23-00969-CV. That appeal is not affected by this memorandum opinion.
2

notice of appeal was filed January 18, 2024.

Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed timely. A motion to extend time is 

necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal 

beyond the time allowed by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, but within the 

15-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion to extend time. See 

Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617–18 (1997) (construing the predecessor to 

Rule 26). Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed within the 15-day period 

provided by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3.

On January 26, 2024, notification was transmitted to all parties the appeal was 

subject to dismissal without further notice for want of jurisdiction unless any party 

demonstrated by February 5, 2024 that this court has jurisdiction over the appeal. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Neither party filed a response.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Spain, and Hassan.
#### James Southwell, Plaintiff, v New York City Transit Authority, Defendant.

Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County,

July 14, 1978

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Mark J. Gold*for plaintiff. *Alphonse DAmbrose*for defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Benjamin F. Nolan, J.

This negligence action was brought in Bronx County to recover $100,000 in money damages for personal injuries. By subsequent order of the Supreme Court, it was transferred to the Civil Court pursuant to CPLR 325 (subd [d]) thus retaining the original *ad damnum*in the Civil Court. Plaintiff, thereafter, brought this motion to amend his complaint to increase the *ad damnum*to $500,000. His supporting papers adequately *207demonstrate aggravation of a pre-existing arthritic condition and his consequent inability to work; but, defendant contends that the motion should be denied on grounds that the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to determine a motion to increase the *ad damnum*arguing that the Civil Court’s jurisdiction is limited by CPLR 325 (subd [d]) to the "monetary jurisdiction of the court in which the action was originally commenced and shall be lawful to the extent of the amount demanded within such limitation.” This contention cannot stand, here, because there is no limitation to the monetary jurisdiction of the (Supreme) court, in which the action was originally commenced. Defendant erroneously seeks to construe the rule to mean "subject to the limitation of the amount originally demanded in the court in which the action was originally commenced” — which it does not.

Defendant further contends that "a motion of this nature can only be made in Supreme Court, which has full jurisdiction over this matter.” This contention must be rejected because CPLR 326 (subd [b]) very clearly provides that "[subsequent proceedings shall be had in the court to which it [the action] has been ordered removed as if the action had been originally commenced there”. In *Mather v Ginsroe, Inc.*(45 Misc 2d 674), the transferor (Supreme) court was held to be without jurisdiction to hear a motion for judgment dismissing the complaint after the case had been transferred to the Civil Court.

Accordingly, plaintiff having satisfactorily demonstrated his right to increase the *ad damnum,*his motion is in all respects granted, on condition that defendant have the opportunity to have a further physical examination of plaintiff if the same is demanded within 30 days of the date of an order entered in accordance with this decision.
No. 47443.

#### Petition 6174-R of Crosse & Blackwell Co. (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It appeared from the testimony of the customs broker that he followed the usual procedure of submitting these entries to the examiner and he was advised that the invoice values were correct but that if any other information were received he would have an opportunity to amend the entries. The ’merchandise was appraised as entered. The collector appealed. The importer did not contest the appeal but agreed that the higher values prevailed. A member of the petitioning corporation also testified as to the instructions given to the broker directing him to make the proper entry, and also that this was the first instance in many years where a petition for remission of additional duties has had to be filed. The examiner testified in behalf of petitioner that he had handled most of this firm’s entries for the last 20 years and that during that time he had always found them willing to give any desired information and that he was satisfied there was no intent to defraud the revenue of the United States. On the record presented the petition was granted.
**Exhibit 23.1** **Consent    of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the    Registration Statements on    Form S-3    (File    No. 333-82124)    and    Form S-8    (File Nos.    333-41360,333-68306,333-122787    and    333-129008)    of Mediacom Communications Corporation of our report dated    March 8, 2007 relating to the financial statements,    financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of    the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting    and the effectiveness of internal control over financial    reporting, which appears in this    Form 10-K.     PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP    New York, New York    March 8, 2007
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Roberto Garcia Reyes, Also Known as Roberto Reyes Garcia, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 307]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Cohen, J.), rendered January 19, 1994, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 41⁄2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The People’s claim on appeal that the sentence imposed was illegal is not preserved for appellate review *(People v Santiago,*80 NY2d 916). *In any*event, the sentencing court’s findings that defendant did not use a weapon in one of the robberies and that the other robbery did not result in injuries bore directly on the manner in which the robberies were committed. Thus they were properly deemed mitigating circumstances *203authorizing an exercise of the court’s narrow discretion under Penal Law § 70.25 (2-b) to impose a concurrent rather than consecutive sentence for violent felonies committed while defendant was free on bail *(People v Garcia,*84 NY2d 336). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Williams and Mazzarelli, 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-QSB of Summit Financial Services Group, Inc. (the
Company), for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Marshall T. Leeds, Chairman, Chief Executive
Officer and President of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify, to my knowledge 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Marshall T. Leeds                                       
|Marshall T. Leeds                                           
|Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President

Dated: November 14, 2006
(Reap. Dec. 10495)

#### Patrick & Graves *v.*United States

Entry No. 5515-H.

(Decided April 18, 1963)

*Stein & Shostak (Marjorie M. Shostak*of counsel) for tibe plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General *(Sheila N. Ziff,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

JOHNSON, Judge:

When this appeal for reappraisement was called for trial, it was submitted upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> Miss Shostak: * * *

> Plaintiff offers to stipulate, subject to tibe approval of tibe court, that the Volkswagen automobiles itemized on the invoice accompanying the entry covered by this appeal for reappraisement, that on the date of exportation thereof to the United States, the market value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers, and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, was the invoice unit values, f.o.b. Hamburg, plus cost of Americanization of $58.00 each as indicated in red ink on ‘the invoice, but not including the shipper’s service charge or fee for insurance.

> Mes. Ziff : After conferring with the Appraiser and Assistant Appraiser at this port, we so agree.

> Miss Shostak: Plaintiff further offers to state for the record that all the merchandise covered by this appeal was entered subsequent to February 27,1958, the effective date of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 provisions relating to Section 402, and plaintiff offers to stipulate that the merchandise the subject of this stipulation is included in the list of articles designated by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 54521 issued January 20, 1958, as provided for in Section 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress.

> Plaintiff further offers to stipulate that there were no higher foreign values for such or similar merchandise on the date of exportation involved in this case.

> Mbs. Ziff : After conferring with the Appraiser and Asssistant Appraiser at this port, we so agree.

On the agreed facts, I find that export value, as that value is defined in section 402a (d) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 70 Stat. 943, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved herein and that such value is the invoice unit *454values f.o.b. Hamburg, plus cost of Americanization of $58 each as indicated in red ink on the invoice, but not including the shipper’s service charge or fee for insurance.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.