alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT (10)(x)

                     AMENDMENT TO ASSET MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT

         This Amendment to Asset Management Agreement dated as of May 31, 2000
(this "Amendment") is entered into by and between Radiant Partners, LLC, a New
York limited liability company (the "Manager") and First Union Real Estate
Equity and Mortgage Investments (the "Company").

                                    RECITALS

         1.       The Manager and the Company executed an Asset Management
                  Agreement, dated as of March 27, 2000 (the "Agreement");

         2.       The parties hereto have determined to enter into this
                  Amendment for purposes of amending the Agreement.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants
and agreements set forth herein, and for other consideration the adequacy of
which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:

         A.       Clause (v) of Article III(a) is deleted in its entirety and
                  replaced by the following clause (v) of Article III(a):

                  (v)      at the election of either party, any time prior to
                           July 31, 2000, upon thirty (30) days prior written
                           notice to the other party.

         B.       The Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, constitutes the
                  entire agreement between the parties with respect to the
                  subject matter hereof.

         C.       Unless otherwise provided herein, capitalized terms herein
                  shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.

         D.       Except as otherwise provided in this Amendment to the
                  contrary, the terms and conditions of the Agreement as amended
                  by this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect.

         E.       In any case in which the terms of this Amendment are
                  inconsistent with the terms of the Agreement, the terms of
                  this Amendment shall govern.


                                      -1-
<PAGE>   2
         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of
the date first above written.

                                 FIRST UNION REAL ESTATE EQUITY
                                 and MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS



                                 By: /s/ William A. Ackman
                                     ------------------------------------
                                     William A. Ackman, Chairman


                                 RADIANT PARTNERS, LLC



                                 By: /s/ Daniel P. Friedman
                                     ------------------------------------
                                     Daniel P. Friedman, Managing Member



                                      -2-
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. (ET).

# PLACE:

The public meeting will be held in the Knowles Conference Center at Georgia State University College of Law, 85 Park Place Northeast, Atlanta, GA 30303.

# STATUS:

                        This meeting will begin at 2:00 p.m. (ET) and will be open to the public. Doors will open at 1:30 p.m. Visitors will be subject to security checks. The public meeting will be webcast from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. on the Commission's website at                         *www.sec.gov.*                         The public is encouraged to RSVP for the meeting at                         *https://www.sec.gov/​investing-america.*

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a quorum of the Commission may attend the meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to provide retail investors with an opportunity to engage with SEC officials, including the Commissioners.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: June 6, 2018.

Brent J. Fields, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2018-12540 Filed 6-6-18; 4:15 pm]

 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
#### James P. Hunter, Appellant, v Lori E. Hunter, Respondent.

[736 NYS2d 631]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Loughlin, J.), dated February 9, 2001, as granted those branches of the cross motion of the defendant wife which were for maintenance pendente lite and an award of an attorney’s fee.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding maintenance pendente lite and an attorney’s fee *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6]; *Louis v Gaines,*255 AD2d 561; *Piali v Piali,*247 AD2d 455; *Ferdinand v Ferdinand,*215 AD2d 350). The court correctly declined to impute income to the wife, since there was no evidence in the record which would permit the calculation of the wife’s potential earnings *(see, Hickland v Hickland,*39 NY2d 1, *cert denied*429 US 941; *Petek v Petek,*239 AD2d 327, 328). Contrary to the husband’s contention, the Supreme Court set forth the factors it considered in making its award in sufficient detail. The proper remedy for any perceived inequities is a speedy trial, where the financial circumstances of the parties may be fully explored *(see, Rigaglia v Rigaglia,*277 AD2d 216; *Piali v Piali, supra).*Krausman, J.P., Luciano, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                         MACKINAC FINANCIAL CORPORATION

                            CERTIFICATION PERSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C Section 1350, and accompanies the quarterly report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, (the "Form 10-Q") of Mackinac
Financial Corporation (the "Issuer").

      I, Eliot R. Stark, Executive Vice President of the Issuer, certify
      that:

      (1)   The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
            or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
            78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

      (2)   The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operation
            of the Issuer.

/s/ Eliot R. Stark
----------------------------------------------------
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)
May 13, 2005
No. 00-7264.

No. 00-7279.

No. 00-7348.

No. 00-7545.

No. 00-7594.

#### In re Villarreal; In re Olivier-Diaz; In re Mimms; In re Lanoue; and In re Buckner.

Petitions for writs of mandamus denied.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 1255** 

ROBERT B. LEWIS , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. DENNIS T. TAYLOR, President; TRUCK DRIVERS, DRIVER HELPERS, TAXICAB DRIVER, GARAGE EMPLOYEE, & AIRPORT EMPLOYEES LOCAL UNION 355 , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. Benson Everett Legg , District Judge. ( 1:11

- cv - 03460

- BEL )

Submitted : June 21, 2012 Decided: July 10, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Robert B. Lewis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Robert B. Lewis seeks to appeal the district court’s orde r dismissing without prejudice Lewis’s complaint for failure to allege a cognizable claim. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

– 46 (1949). The order Lewis seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order because it is possible for Lewis to cure the pleading defic iencies in the complaint that were identified by the district court. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066

- 67 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that a dismissal without prejudice is not appealable unless it is clear that no am endment to the complaint “could cure the defects in the plaintiff’s case” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Chao v. Rivendell Woods, Inc. , 415 F.3d 342, 345 (4th Cir. 2005) (explaining that, under Domino Sugar , this court must “examine the appe alability of a dismissal without prejudice based on the specific facts of the case in order to guard against piecemeal litigation and repetitive appeals”). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument becaus e the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the3 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
#### Jessel M. OURSO, Sheriff of Iberville Parish, v. Joseph B. DUPONT, Sr.

No. 54353.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 24, 1974.

In re: Joseph B. Dupont, Sr. applying for Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus.

Writ granted limited to assignment of error number 4. The recused judge could not extend the restraining order. Judge Lewis S. Doherty has been appointed by this Court Judge ad hoc to dispose of all matters raised herein including the extension issuing or dissolving of restraining orders. The restraining order in existence by nature of the act of the recused judge must be dissolved. The cause rests in the judge ad hoc. All other issues are not considered.
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-30071 Summary Calendar

PEARL HUMPHRIES; DOCK HUMPHRIES,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

PERSONAL HEALTH CARE GROUP, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

(98-CV-1982)

October 28, 1999

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Personal Health Care Group, Inc., removed this diversity case

to the district court, and the Humphries appeal the district

court's denial of their motion to remand to state court. This

order is the sole matter the Humphries appeal, and there has been

no other order in this case that is subject to appeal. Standing

alone, an order denying a motion to remand is not a final order

appealable of right. S ee, e.g., Aucoin v. Matador Services, Inc.

,2

749 F.2d 1180 (5th Cir. 1985). The district court's order was not

certified, and the Humphries did not petition under Fed. R. App. P.

5(a) for permission to appeal un der our discretionary appellate

j urisdiction. Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for want of

jurisdiction.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Donald James EDWARDS.

No. 61912.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 29, 1978.

In re: Donald James Edwards applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, review and stay order. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Writ denied. Insufficient showing to warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.
From: Ed Kalakauskis [mailto:uskalkis@aol.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:49 AM

To: Derby, Jennifer

Subject: final environmental impact statement

Ms. Jennifer,

I would first like to thank you for the opportunity to address the proposed ocean, dredging material 

disposal sites(ODM DS). As a volunteer artificial reef builder for the community of Jacksonville for the 

last 30 some years I have spent countless hours observing the material that we have placed offshore 

Jacksonville. And this is my concerns.

First of all and most important of all is the overall underwater environment. With saying that I am 

concerned about the material that may move on the bottom that may impact our fisheries and habitat . 

For example invertebrates, shrimp and other marine life.

Second is the nature of the material having the possibility of moving around and possibly impacting 

areas that is not intended.

Once again, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity and if I can be any further assistance please do not 

hesitate to contact me.

"I got your 6"

Artificial reef builder(Jacksonville offshore sports fishing club)

Ed Kalakauskis

1207 Aruba Court, Jacksonville, FL 32226

area. 904-923-5994
#### OHIO REALTY INVESTMENT CORPORATION, etc., Appellant, v. SOUTHERN BANK OF WEST PALM BEACH, etc., Appellee.

No. 71-1054.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 29, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Joseph P. Metzger, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
OSWER/OSRTI 

Washington, DC 20460 

NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST (NPL)

***Final Site*** March 2010 

GOWANUS CANAL Brooklyn, New York 

Kings County 

 Site Location: 

The Gowanus Canal is a 100-foot wide canal extending about 1.8 miles from Butler Street to Gowanus Bay in 

Brooklyn, NY. The adjacent waterfront is primarily commercial and surrounded by residential neighborhoods. 

 Site History: 

The Gowanus Canal was built in the 19th Century by dredging a tidal creek and wetlands to allow industrial access to 

Gowanus Bay. After completion in the 1860s, the canal became a busy industrial waterway, home to heavy industries 

including manufactured gas plants (MGP), coal yards, cement makers, tanneries, chemical plants, and oil refineries. It 

was also the repository of untreated industrial wastes, raw sewage and runoff. 

 Site Contamination/Contaminants: 

The canal consists of contaminated sediments with no identified source(s) due to the complexity and overlap of 

potential sources. Sediments are contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls, 

pesticides, metals, and volatile organic contaminants. 

 Potential Impacts on Surrounding Community/Environment: 

The canal is part of the New York-New Jersey Estuary, which EPA has designated an Estuary of National 

Significance. Some people currently use the canal for canoeing and diving, while others catch canal fish for 

consumption. A public fishing area just downstream of the canal in Gowanus Bay is fished daily. 

 Response Activities (to date): 

The Gowanus Flushing Tunnel was constructed in 1911 to bring water into the canal and reduce stagnation. It stopped 

operating in the 1960s, but was repaired and reactivated in April 1999. This allows oxygen levels to be brought up to 

levels to sustain aquatic life. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers collected sediment samples in 2003 and 2005, and 

has completed a restoration study. 

 Need for NPL Listing: 

The state referred the site to EPA. Other federal and state options have been evaluated but are not viable at this time. 

[The description of the site (release) is based on information available at the time the site was evaluated with the HRS. The description may change 

as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent of contamination.] 

For more information about the hazardous substances identified in this narrative summary, including general information regarding the effects of exposure to these 

substances on human health, please see the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) ToxFAQs. ATSDR ToxFAQs can be found on the Internet 

at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaq.html or by telephone at 1-888-42-ATSDR or 1-888-422-8737.
260 La. 108

#### Myrtle Dyson MILES v. CITY-PARISH GOVERNMENT OF EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH et al.

No. 51945.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 7, 1971.

In re: Mrs. Myrtle Dyson Miles applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 253 So.2d 681.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, we find no error of law in its judgment.

TATE, J.,

respectfully dissents, being of the opinion that the reasoning and result is inconsistent with the principles announced by this Court in Saxton v. Plum Orchards, 215 La. 378, 40 So.2d 791.

DIXON, J., dissents from the refusal.
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: 3-29-11 Meeting with PMI Ash a nd EPA on the 2011 NHSM Final Rule

FROM: Tab Tesnau

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery

TO: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329

On March 29, 2011, EPA met with PMI Ash members to discuss their issues and concerns with

the final rule entitled, “Identif ication of Non-Hazardous Seconda ry Materials That are Solid

Waste,” which was published in the Federal Re gister on March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15456). This is

referred to as the 2011 NHSM Final Rule.

During that meeting, members from the PMI As h expressed concerns with how carbon burnout

units would be regulated in light of the 2011 NHSM Final Rule. EPA asked clarifying questions

regarding the information presented.
Exhibit 10.6




 


Omnibus
Agreement Extension


 


This Omnibus Agreement Extension (“Agreement”)
is entered into on February 25, 2014, and is by and between EnerVest, Ltd., (f/k/a EnerVest Management Partners, Ltd.) a Texas
limited partnership (“EnerVest”) and EV Energy GP, LP, a Delaware limited partnership (the “General Partner”).


 


WHEREAS, the Omnibus Agreement (the “First
Omnibus Agreement”), was entered into on September 29, 2006, by and among EnerVest, EV Management LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company (“EV Management”), the General Partner, EV Energy Partners, LP, a Delaware limited partnership (the
“Partnership”), and EV Properties, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (“OLP”). Any capitalized term not
defined herein shall have the meaning set forth therein;


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3.3 of the
First Omnibus Agreement, EnerVest and the General Partner determine the amount of general and administrative expenses that will
be properly allocated to the Partnership after December 31, 2008;


 


WHEREAS, the First Omnibus Agreement automatically
renews each year if it is not terminated by either EnerVest or the General Partner;


 


WHEREAS, the First Omnibus Agreement was
extended by the Omnibus Agreement Extensions entered into on December 17, 2008, December 10, 2009, December 21, 2010, December
20, 2011 and February 25, 2013;


 


WHEREAS, neither party has terminated the
First Omnibus Agreement.


 


In consideration of the premises and the
covenants, conditions, and agreements contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which are hereby acknowledged, EnerVest and the General Partner hereby agree as follows:


 


1.The First Omnibus Agreement shall continue in
effect until December 31, 2014, subject to termination or automatic renewal on such date as provided in the First Omnibus Agreement.


 


2.The Partnership shall pay EnerVest a fee of
$1,008,333.33 per month, $12.1 million annually, for the services described in the First Omnibus Agreement, subject to adjustment
as provided in Section 3.3 therein.


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have
executed this Agreement on, and effective as of, the date first set forth above.


 





	 	ENERVEST, LTD.	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	  EnerVest Management GP, L.C.,	 
	 	 	its general partner	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Mark A. Houser                                 	 
	 	 	Mark A. Houser	 
	 	 	President and Chief Executive Officer	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	EV ENERGY GP, L.P.	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	EV Management, L.L.C.,	 
	 	 	a Delaware limited liability company	 
	 	 	its General Partner	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Michael E. Mercer                                 	 
	 	 	Michael E. Mercer	 
	 	 	Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70

 38

 40

 42

 44

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲

▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 2000

 500

18 12 06 00

05/30

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 30 May 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.77 N 77.11 W Meters AGL
#### DePADRO v. MOORE.

No. 38065.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 215 So.2d 27.
#### CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE, Florida, Plaintiff, v. STATE of Florida et al., Defendants.

No. 40223.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 25, 1971.

Certified question dismissed.
Order entered June 3 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 12 - 00095 - CR No. 05 - 12 - 00096 - CR No. 05 - 12 - 00097 - CR THOMAS LEE NIX, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Co llin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 003 - 82321 - 10 , 003 - 82323 - 10, 003 - 82324 - 10 

### O RDER The Court ORDERS Denise Y. Condran, court reporter for the Collin County Court at Law No. 3, to file the original State’s Exhibit 9 from the trial of these causes wi thin TEN (10) days from the date of this order.

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES PRESIDING JUSTICE
UNITED STATES OF A . .\1ERICA 

BEFORE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

) 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

"'-1ONIER LIFETILE, LLC ) 

a corporation; ) 

) DOCKET NO. 9290 

BORAL LTD, ) 

a corporation; and ) 

) 

LAFARGE S.A. ) 

a corporation. ) 

ORDER RESCHEDULING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 

The pretrial status conference set for Thursday, February 18, 1999 has been rescheduled for 

Wednesday, February 24, 1999 at 2:30p.m. in Room 106, at the Federal Trade Commission, 600 

Pennsylvania A.venue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 

D. Michael Chappell 

Administrative Law Judge 

Date: February 18, 1999