alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CNL Strategic Capital, LLC S-1/A


EXHIBIT 10.7


 


 






 


CNL
Financial Group

CNL Center at City Commons 450 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801-3336


tel
407.650.1000 800.522.3863


fax
407.650.1231


www.cnl.com


Mailing
Address:


P.O.
Box 4920


Orlando,
Florida 32802-4920


October 19, 2021


Laura Stevens


UMB Bank, N.A.


Corporate Trust & Escrow Services


928 Grand Blvd., 12th Floor


Mail Stop: 1020409


Kansas City, Missouri 64106


 


RE: Escrow Agreement
dated as of February 14, 2018, by and among CNL Strategic Capital, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”),
UMB Bank, N.A. as escrow agent and CNL Securities Corp. (collectively, the “Parties”), as supplemented and amended by the
First Amendment to the Escrow Agreement dated as of April 18, 2019, the Second Amendment to the Escrow Agreement dated as of July 12,
2019, and the Third Amendment to the Escrow Agreement dated as of January 31, 2021 (collectively, the “Agreement”).


Dear Ms. Stevens,


The Company proposes
to offer and sell, on a best-efforts basis through the Distribution Participants, the Company’s shares of Class A, Class T, Class
D, and Class I limited liability interests on a best-efforts basis up to $1,100,000,000 of gross offering proceeds (excluding the shares
of its Class A, Class T, Class D and Class I common stock to be offered and sold pursuant to the Company’s distribution reinvestment
plan), at a current offering purchase price per Class A share, Class T share, Class D share and Class I share (the “Follow-On Offering”)
pursuant to an offering prospectus as amended from time to time and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of a registration
statement file no. 333-253295.


For the avoidance of
doubt, the Parties hereby acknowledge and agree that the term Shares, as defined in the Agreement, shall also include the shares offered
and sold in the Follow-On Offering. Except as expressly amended by this letter, the Agreement shall continue unmodified and in full force
and effect. No provision of this letter may be changed or modified, except by an instrument in writing signed by each of the parties hereto.
This letter may be executed simultaneously in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together
shall constitute one and the same instrument.


Sincerely,


/s/ Tammy Tipton


 


Tammy Tipton


Chief Financial Officer,


CNL Strategic Capital, LLC




     


    


    


Acknowledge and agreed to as of the date first above written.


	 	 
	 	
    UMB BANK, N.A., as escrow agent

     

    By: /s/ Lara L. Stevens

    Name:Lara L. Stevens

    Title:Vice President

     

     

     

	 	
    CNL SECURITIES CORP.,as managing dealer

     

    By: /s/Erin M. Gray

    Name: Erin M. Gray

    Title:Authorized Signatory
#### PALM BEACH COUNTY POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner, v. The PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS COMMISSION of the State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 76-1606.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 15, 1977.

Arthur M. Wolff of Wolff, Gora & Panza, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.

Jane Rigler, Staff Atty. for Jack L. McLean, Jr., Acting Gen. Counsel, Tallahassee, for respondent.

*1058PER CURIAM.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari is denied.

CROSS, DAUKSCH and LETTS, JJ., concur.
#### Donnie Wayne PARKER, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 42646.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 14, 1972.

Certiorari dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2380 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2380

  To amend title 49, United States Code, to allow certain funds to be 
 used for incremental costs of incorporating art into facilities, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 8, 2021

  Ms. Adams introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 49, United States Code, to allow certain funds to be 
 used for incremental costs of incorporating art into facilities, 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 ``Saving Transit Art Resources Act'' 
or the ``STAR Act''.

SEC. 2. ALLOWING ART.

    (a) In General.--Section 5323(h) of title 49, United States Code, 
is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1) by inserting ``or'' after the 
        semicolon;
            (2) by striking paragraph (2); and
            (3) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
    (b) No Special Rule.--Section 5309 of such title is amended by--
            (1) striking subsection (p); and
            (2) redesignating subsection (q) as subsection (p).
                                 <all>
```
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-15-00102-CR

JEREMY JERMAINE HODGE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Panola County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-C-0097

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On June 27, 2012, Jeremy Jermaine Hodge pled guilty to burglary of a building,1and in 

two separate cases, he pled guilty to credit card abuse.2 Pursuant to a plea agreement, he was 

sentenced to two years’ incarceration in a state jail3and fined $10,000.00 in each case. In its 

judgment of conviction in each case, the trial court suspended the imposition of the sentences, 

suspended all or part of the fines,4and placed Hodge on community supervision for four years. 

On January 27, 2015, the State moved to revoke Hodge’s community supervision in each of the 

cases. After a hearing, the trial court revoked Hodge’s community supervision and sentenced him 

to twenty-four months’ incarceration in a state jail in each case, with credit for time served and the 

sentences to run concurrently; the remaining fine balances were dismissed. In the case appealed 

here, Hodge’s community supervision was revoked on his conviction of credit card abuse.5 

In a consolidated brief addressing all three cases, Hodge contends that the sentence 

imposed by the trial court is grossly disproportionate to his community supervision violations. The 

argument raised in this appeal is based exclusively on the argument brought before this Court in 

the companion appeal styled Hodge v. State, cause number 06-15-00101-CR. In our opinion of 

 

1See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(a), (c)(1) (West 2011). 

2See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 32.31(b), (d) (West 2011).

3A state jail felony is punishable by confinement in a state jail for not less than 180 days and not more than two years 

and by a fine of not more than $10,000.00. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.35(a), (b) (West Supp. 2015).

4The trial court suspended the $10,000.00 fine in the conviction for burglary of a building, and $9,000.00, each, of the 

fines in the two convictions for credit card abuse.

5The revocation of his community supervision on his convictions of burglary of a building and of credit card abuse

have also been appealed to this Court and addressed in opinions released the same date as this opinion in our cause 

numbers 06-15-00101-CR and 06-15-00103-CR.
3

this date disposing of that appeal, we found that this Court lacks jurisdiction to address Hodge’s 

issue. For the reasons set out in that opinion, we overrule Hodge’s point of error as it applies to 

this appeal.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: October 30, 2015

Date Decided: December 1, 2015

Do Not Publish
2005 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-29-2005

Paripovic v. Atty Gen USA

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 03-4193

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Paripovic v. Atty Gen USA" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 585.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/585
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

August 24, 2005 

No. 03-4193

ZELJKO PARIPOVIC, Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF UNITED STATES, Respondent

(On Petition for Review from DOJ-OIL: A72-780-152)

Present: AMBRO, VAN ANTWERPEN and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges

Unopposed Motion by Respondent to Amend or Modify Opinion filed 

August 12, 2005.

 /s/ Aina R. Laws 

Case Manager 267-299-4957

 O R D E R 

The foregoing unopposed motion by Respondent to amend or modify the Opinion is

granted.

By the Court,

/s/ Thomas L. Ambro 

Circuit Judge

Dated: August 29, 2005

ARL/cc: SKJ; DED; RME; DEG; JDW
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio , Texas

October 4, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00044

- CV

TITLE SOURCE, INC.,

Appellant

v.

HOUSECANARY, INC., formerly known as Canary Analytics, Inc.,

Appellee s

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CI06300

Honorable Dav id A. Canales, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appell ee’s M otion for Leave to File Extra

- Length Brief is GRANTED.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 4th day of October, 2019

.

___________________________________ LUZ ESTRADA

, Chief Deputy Clerk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of

JOSHUA J. MCDOWELL

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT

FROM ADMINISTRATIVE SUSPENSION

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 99 DB 2019 (No. 59 RST 2019)

Attorney Registration No. 89659

(Out of State)

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 8

th day of July, 2019, the Report and Recommendation of 

Disciplinary Board Member dated June 28, 2019, is approved and it is ORDERED that

Joshua J. McDowell, who has been on Administrative Suspension, has never been 

suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that he has the moral qualifications, 

competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, 

shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this 

Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing 

of this matter shall be paid by the Petitioner.
Foreigners’ Transactions in Long-Term Securities with U.S. Residents 

12 Months Through:

2001 2002 Nov-02 Nov-03 Aug-03 Sep-03 Oct-03 Nov-03

Total Purchases, net 501.2 574.6 571.0 670.2 49.9 4.3 27.8 87.6

Total Gross Purchases 12,819.5 15,663.0 15,489.7 18,877.0 1,785.8 1,708.6 1,807.5 1,492.6

Total Gross Sales 12,318.3 15,088.4 14,918.7 18,206.7 1,735.8 1,704.4 1,779.7 1,405.0

Domestic Securities Purchased, net /1 520.8 547.6 546.3 709.4 62.4 15.9 41.1 82.5

Private, net /2 494.1 506.1 511.5 575.8 62.4 4.3 18.3 61.6

Treasury Bonds & Notes, net 15.7 111.0 111.9 151.8 26.1 -2.5 -7.4 14.6

Gov't Agency Bonds, net 146.6 166.7 160.9 137.5 8.5 -6.3 6.4 9.3

Corporate Bonds, net 217.6 176.1 176.3 258.9 16.5 19.3 20.3 28.8

Equities, net 114.2 52.2 62.5 27.6 11.4 -6.2 -1.0 8.9

Official, net 26.7 41.5 34.8 133.6 0.0 11.5 22.9 20.9

Treasury Bonds & Notes, net 2.8 8.9 3.4 105.0 -1.0 8.1 19.5 18.9

Gov't Agency Bonds, net 17.4 28.4 27.1 23.8 0.4 3.0 3.0 1.3

Corporate Bonds, net 4.3 6.2 6.5 5.0 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.9

Equities, net 2.2 -2.1 -2.2 -0.2 0.2 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2

Foreign Securities Purchased, net /3 -19.6 27.0 24.7 -39.2 -12.5 -11.6 -13.3 5.1

Foreign Bonds, net 30.5 28.5 32.5 20.7 1.0 -2.7 -5.1 -3.7

Foreign Equities, net -50.1 -1.5 -7.8 -59.9 -13.6 -8.9 -8.2 8.8

/1 Foreign net purchases of of U.S. securities (+).

/2 Includes international and regional organizations.

/3 U.S. net acquisitions (-) of foreign securities.

Source: U.S. Department of the Treasury
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999             JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999             JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                         969,185                 969,185
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  344,154                 344,154
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (6,000)                 (6,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  3,331,752               3,331,752
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,682,864               4,682,684
<PP&E>                                       1,675,935               1,675,935
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,581,003)             (1,581,003)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,934,359               4,934,359
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          185,466                 185,466
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           77,500                  77,500
<PREFERRED>                                        597                     597
<COMMON>                                     4,257,773               4,257,773
<OTHER-SE>                                     413,023                 413,023
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,934,359               4,934,359
<SALES>                                        589,328                 908,677
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               589,328               1,322,466
<CGS>                                          594,284                 876,432
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,099,328               1,552,297
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (508,698)               (226,871)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,640                   2,960
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (510,338)               (229,831)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (510,338)               (229,831)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.12)                  (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.12)                  (0.05)
        

</TABLE>
#### Jesse A. LARA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cal A. TERHUNE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-17099.

D.C. No. CV-01-05831-AWI.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 16, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

California prisoner Jesse A. Lara appeals pro se the district court’s judgment *276dismissing, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Wyatt v. Terhune,*280 F.3d 1238, 1244-45 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Lara’s action because it is clear from the face of the complaint that Lara failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. *See id.*at 1246^47.

We reject Lara’s contention that attempts at exhaustion would be futile because regardless of their adequacy prisoners are required to exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit. *See Booth v. Churner,*532 U.S. 731, 740-41, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Henry A. SCHULKIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-351.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 18, 1973.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and John Lipinski and Eva Weisner, Asst. Public Defenders, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Lance R. Stelzer, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged by information with one count of possession and one count of the sale of a hallucinogenic drug known as LSD. Following jury trial, a verdict of guilty was rendered, judgment was entered, and he was sentenced to five years on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. This appeal ensued.

Several points are urged for reversal : First, that the trial court erred in not discharging the defendant in the trial court because he was not brought to trial within the provisions of Rule 3.191 CrPR, 33 F. S.A. [the speedy trial rule]. We find no merit in this position because the defendant never brought this contention to the attention of the trial judge by appropriate motion or argument. State v. Earnest, Fla.App. 1972, 265 So.2d 397; Morris v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 267 So.2d 99; Rules 3.191(a)(1), 3.191(d)(1), CrPR.1

*138Next, it is urged *that the*trial judge erred in certain instructions relative to a reference to a confidential informant by a witness for the State. It is apparent, from a review of the entire trial transcript, that the trial judge committed no error in the instruction he gave to the jury to disregard any reference to any confidential informant. Stewart v. State, Fla.App.1969, 221 So.2d 155; Williams v. State, Fla.App. 1971, 243 So.2d 215.

Lastly, it is urged that it was error to sentence the defendant on both the conviction for possession and sale, when they arose out of the same incident, citing Yost v. State, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 469. The State concurs -yvith the appellant in this position and, therefore, the sentence of five years on the count of possession be and the same is hereby set aside.

In all other respects, the judgments of conviction be and the same are hereby affirmed. The sentence on the sale is affirmed; the sentence on the possession is set aside.

1

. “(a)(1). Speedy Trial Without Demand.—

Except as otherwise provided by this Rule, every person charged with a crime, by indictment or information or trial affidavit, shall without demand be brought to trial within 90 days if the crime charged be a misdemeanor, or within 180 days if the crime charged be a felony, capital or noncapital, and if not brought to trial within such time shall upon motion timely filed with the court having jurisdiction and served upon the prosecuting attorney be forever discharged from the crime; # * *ff*

* * * * *

“(d)(1). Motion for Discharge; Trial; When Timely.—

A motion for discharge shall be timely if filed and served on or after the expiration of the periods of time for trial provided for herein; * * * ”
NO. 12-15-00054-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

SABRE ENERGY CORPORATION, 

SONCO HOLDINGS, LLC, VAN W. 

MOUNTS AND EDWIN WESLEY 

SANO, 

APPELLANT

V.

WELL-PRO SERVICE, L.P.,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2

GREGG COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

The parties have filed a joint motion to remand in which they state that they have settled 

all claims in issue in this appeal. Consequently, they request that the trial court’s judgment be 

reversed and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the 

agreement of the parties.

This court is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. Accordingly, we grant the 

joint motion to remand, reverse the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits, and 

remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the parties’ 

agreement. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B), 43.2(d). Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, costs 

are taxed against the party incurring them. 

Opinion delivered July 22, 2015.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 22, 2015

NO. 12-15-00054-CV

SABRE ENERGY CORPORATION, SONCO HOLDINGS, LLC, VAN W. MOUNTS

AND EDWIN WESLEY SANO,

Appellants

V.

WELL-PRO SERVICE, L.P.,

Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law No 2 

of Gregg County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2012-1207-CCL2)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and the briefs filed 

herein and the joint motion to remand for purposes of settlement, the Court having heard and 

fully consider said motion is of the opinion the same should be granted.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that 

the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits be reversed and the cause remanded to 

the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the parties’ agreement, and that all 

costs of this appeal are hereby adjudged against the party incurring same; and that this decision 

be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 DANIEL R. DUNAGAN, 2 Petitioner-Appellee, 3

v. NO. 29,188 4 GLORIA CHAVEZ, 5 Respondent-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF GRANT COUNTY 7 MIKE MURPHY, District Judge 8 Gloria Chavez 9 Hurley, NM 10 Pro Se Appellant 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION 12 KENNEDY, Judge. 13 Respondent, pro se, appeals the district court’s order granting the petition for 14 dissolution of marriage and dividing the property. We issued a notice of proposed 15 summary disposition, proposing to affirm the di strict court’s order. In our notice, we 16 stated that the arguments Respondent raises on appeal should have been raised first 17 in district court, including Respondent’s arguments that she was not given notice of 18 the hearing on the petition for dissolution of marriage. [CN 2] We explained that if 19 Respondent wishes to pursue the claims she ha s raised in the Court, then she may do 202 so in district court by seeking relief from the final order. [C N 2-3] We referred 1 Respondent to Rule 1-060-(B) NMRA (permitting parties to seek relief from a 2 judgment on several grounds, including mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, 3 newly discovered evidence, the judgment is void, etc.) [CN 2-3] Respondent has 4 filed an informal memorandum in opposition to our notice, indicating that she has 5 filed a motion to reconsider the order granting petition for dissolution of marriage in 6 district court. We construe this respons e as an acceptance of our proposed disposition. 7 Accordingly, we affirm. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10

___________________________________ 11 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 12 WE CONCUR : 13

___________________________ 14 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 15

___________________________ 16 ROBERT E. ROBLES, Judge 17