alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w20



 





Exhibit 10.20




FIRST AMENDMENT TO STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT



     This First Amendment to Stock Purchase Agreement (“First Amendment”) is effective as of
January 10, 2008 by and among First Interstate BancSystem, Inc. (“FIBS”) and Christen Group, Inc.
formerly known as First Western Bancorp, Inc. (“First Western”).



RECITALS:





	 	A.	 	FIBS and First Western entered a Stock Purchase Agreement
effective as of September 18, 2007 (the “Agreement”) providing for, among other things, the
purchase by FIBS of all of the issued and outstanding common stock of certain
subsidiaries of First Western.
	 
	 	B.	 	The Agreement contemplated, among other things, certain adjustments to the
loan loss reserve of the Banks.
	 
	 	C.	 	The parties desire to amend the provisions relating to the loan loss reserve and
the Purchase Price to give effect to certain accounting, tax and
other
considerations at the mutual agreement of the parties.
	 
	 	 	 	IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE, the parties agree as follows:





1.0
Definitions. Capitalized terms used in this First Amendment and not otherwise defined are
accorded the meaning given such terms in the Agreement.



2.0
Amendment to Section 5.6. Section 5.6 is amended by inserting (1) in subpart (b)(i) for the
dollar amount “$4,950,000.00” the dollar amount of “$4,500,000.00” and, (2) in subpart (b)(ii) for
the dollar amount “$6,050,000.00” the dollar amount of “$4,200,000.00”.



3.0
Amendment to Purchase Price. Section 2.2.1 of the Agreement is amended by replacing the phrase
and dollar amount “Two Hundred Fifty-One Million Three Hundred Seventy-Seven Thousand Three
Hundred Ninety-Two Dollars ($251,377,392.00)” with the phrase and dollar amount “Two Hundred
Forty-Nine Million Seventy-Seven Thousand Three Hundred Ninety-Two Dollars ($249,077,392.00)”.



4.0 No
Further Effect. This First Amendment is intended to be and shall be construed as an
integral part of the Agreement. Except as expressly amended by this First Amendment, the Agreement
remains in full force and effect unimpaired by this First Amendment.




(Remainder of page blank. Signature page follows.)




	 	 	 
	FIRST AMENDMENT TO
STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT
	 	Page 1






 









 






	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	FIRST INTERSTATE BANCSYSTEM, INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Lyle R. Knight
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Lyle R. Knight
	 

	 	 	 	Its: Chief Executive Officer
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	CHRISTEN GROUP,INC.

f/k/a FIRST WESTERN BANCORP., INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Paul Christen
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Paul Christen
	 

	 	 	 	Its: Chief Executive Officer






	 	 	 
	FIRST AMENDMENT TO STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT
	 	Page 2
#### Peggy Mistich REINHARDT, et al. v. Jan Marie Manno REINHARDT, et al.

No. 98-C-2697.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 18, 1998.

IN RE: Reinhardt, Jan Marie Et Al;— Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review; Parish of Lafourche 17th Judicial District Court Div. “A” Number 79013; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Number CA97 1889.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J. and VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.

KNOLL, J. not on panel.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Police Week 2019 Spotlight: Officer Colton Kruse

DLA Aviation Public Affairs

                RICHMOND, VA  –              **. Name:****How long have you been in law enforcement (all together and at DSCR)?****What made you decide to go into law enforcement and public service?****What is your most memorable event from your job as a police officer?****What is your greatest achievement on the job?****What’s the most rewarding thing about being a police officer?****Have you had any mentors in your career? If so, how have/did they help?****How do you define excellence (as related to being a Law Enforcement Officer)?****What makes for a great day on the job?****What would you say to someone to encourage them to go into public service?**

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA Installation Management RichmondVirginiaOfficer Colton KruseDefense Logistics Agency AviationDefense Supply Center Richmond Virginia
# C_2012098EN.01002301.xml

| 31.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/23

---

Action brought on 17 January 2012 — 3M Pumps v OHIM — 3M (3M Pumps)

(Case T-25/12)

2012/C 98/38

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: 3M Pumps Srl (Taglio di Po, Italy) (represented by: F. Misuraca, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: 3M Company (St. Paul, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 October 2011 in Case R 2406/2010-1. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 October 2011 in Case R 2406/2010-1.

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: 3M Pumps Srl

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘3M Pumps’, for goods and services in Classes 7, 16 and 38

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: 3M Company

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘3M’, for goods and services in Classes 7, 16 and 38

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2015198EN.01002901.xml

| 15.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2015 — CHEMK and KF v Council

(Case T-169/12) (1)

1

((Dumping - Imports of ferro-silicon originating, inter alia, in Russia - Partial interim review - Calculation of the dumping margin - Change of circumstances - Lasting nature))

(2015/C 198/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK) (Chelyabinsk, Russia); and Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) (Novokuznetsk, Russia) (represented by: B. Evtimov, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted initially by G. Berrisch and A. Polcyn, lawyers, and subsequently by G. Berrisch and N. Chesaites, Barrister, and lastly by D. Gerardin, lawyer)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by H. van Vliet, M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, and subsequently by M. França, A. Stobiecka-Kuik and J.-F. Brakeland, acting as Agents); and Euroalliages (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Prost and M.-S. Dibling, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the annulment in part of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 60/2012 of 16 January 2012 terminating the partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of ferro-silicon originating, inter alia, in Russia (OJ 2012 L 22, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK) and Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK) and Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3) | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs;

| 4) | Orders Euroalliages to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4)

Orders Euroalliages to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.

1

---
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 201 3

- NM

- 221

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
#### HIRANPORT COMPANY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES TREASURY DEPARTMENT, acting by and through the United States Customs Service, Appellee.

Appeal No. 81-14.

United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.

Nov. 19, 1981.

*285Robert G. Burt, and. David R. Ludwig, Portland, Or., for appellant.

J. Paul McGrath, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Branch Director, and Sheila N. Ziff, New York City, for appellee.

Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER and NIES, Judges.

NIES, Judge.

This appeal is from an order of the United States Court of International Trade granting the Government’s motion to dismiss for appellant’s failure to dispose of this action by trial or otherwise by October 15, 1980, and from the refusal of the court to grant appellant’s motion to reinstate the case and extend the time for disposition until March 15, 1981 (or October 15, 1981). Appellant charges the trial court with abuse of its discretion. We affirm.

OPINION

Given that this case was filed on July 7,1978, that on two previous occasions the court had granted appellant additional time after appellant failed to prosecute,1 and that the order of the court entered August 4,1980, in reinstating the case, specifically required that appellant at least be ready for trial by October 15,1980, we hold that there was no abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of appellant’s motion for an extension of that date, good cause not having been shown. Appellant’s motion for an extension of time was not made until October 15, 1980, and was based solely on the specious ground that additional time was required for the convenience of the Government to answer interrogatories which appellant had not served until October 14, 1980.

In its motion for rehearing dated December 30, 1980, appellant gave the explanation that appellant’s counsel was unable to serve the interrogatories sooner because of the disruption caused by reorganization of the law firm at the time the order was entered. However, in obtaining the August 4, 1980 order appellant’s counsel had represented to the court that the interrogatories were ready for service in June and would have been served but for the dismissal that was entered on June 10,1980. Appellant’s further explanation that counsel did not understand the procedure of the court and was misled in some way by a clerk’s response to his inquiry made on October 14, 1980, does not explain appellant’s failure to have served the interrogatories in ample time to be ready to proceed to trial as required by the court’s order. It was well within the discretion of the trial court to find appellant’s motion for rehearing inadequate to justify reinstating the case.

Accordingly, the decision of the Court of International Trade is *affirmed.*

1

. On appellant’s motion, after a 30 day notice of dismissal for failure to prosecute issued on November 8, 1979, discovery was extended until May 1, 1980. Appellant failed to meet that date and did not move for additional time prior thereto. An order of dismissal was entered on June 10, 1980.
# C_2012389EN.01000302.xml

| 15.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 389/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 389/3

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 18 September 2012 — Portgás — Sociedade de Produção e Distribuição de Gás, SA v Ministério do Ambiente, do Ordenamento do Território e do Desenvolvimento Regional

(Case C-425/12)

2012/C 389/04

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Portgás — Sociedade de Produção e Distribuição de Gás, SA

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministério do Ambiente, do Ordenamento do Território e do Desenvolvimento Regional

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

May Articles 4(1) and 14(1)(c)(i) of Council Directive 93/38/EEC (1) of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, as amended by Directive 98/04/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998, and the other provisions of those Directives and the general principles of Community law applicable, be interpreted as meaning that they create obligations for private individuals who are public service concession-holders (in particular an entity covered by Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 93/38/EEC), where that Directive has not been transposed into national law by the Portuguese State, so that failure to fulfil those obligations may be invoked against that private concession-holding entity by the Portuguese State by means of an act attributable to one of its Ministries?

1

2

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 84).

1

(2)  OJ 1998 L 101, p.1.

2

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6601
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAYMOND MCARTHUR BEALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-57-F) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 19, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond McArthur Beall, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Raymond McArthur Beall appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for review of sentence. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Beall , No. CR-95-57-F (E.D.N.C. Mar. 19, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2013026EN.01007002.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/70

---

Action brought on 27 September 2012 — ZZ v Europol

(Case F-104/12)

2013/C 26/142

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: W.J. Dammingh and N.D. Dane, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of Europol’s decision, taken to implement the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 June 2010 in Case F-27/09 Hanschmann v Europol, by which Europol granted the applicant a lump sum by way of compensation for the harm caused to him by the decision annulled by that judgment

Hanschmann

Europol

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the decision of 28 November 2011 by which the defendant awards the applicant EUR 13 000 in respect of compensation for the damage which he suffered, as full implementation of an earlier judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal, and the decision of 29 June 2012 by which the complaint brought by the applicant against the decision of 28 November 2011 was rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 28 November 2011 by which the defendant awards the applicant EUR 13 000 in respect of compensation for the damage which he suffered, as full implementation of an earlier judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal, and the decision of 29 June 2012 by which the complaint brought by the applicant against the decision of 28 November 2011 was rejected;

| — | order Europol to pay the costs, including the salary of the legal representative. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Europol to pay the costs, including the salary of the legal representative.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1710 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.1710

                      One Hundred Twelfth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and twelve

                                 An Act

 
   To designate the United States courthouse located at 222 West 7th 
  Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska, as the James M. Fitzgerald United States 
                               Courthouse.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. JAMES M. FITZGERALD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE.
    (a) Designation.--The United States courthouse located at 222 West 
7th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska, shall be known and designated as the 
``James M. Fitzgerald United States Courthouse''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the United States 
courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a 
reference to the ``James M. Fitzgerald United States Courthouse''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```