alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  Exhibit 10.1.2

  AMENDMENT TO THE SECOND RESTATED AGREEMENT OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP OF BRADLEY
                         OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

         This Amendment to the Second Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership
of Bradley Operating Limited Partnership, dated July 31, 1998 (this
"Amendment"), amends the Second Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership, dated
September 2, 1997, as amended by and among Bradley Real Estate, Inc. and each of
the limited partners executing the signature page thereto (the "Partnership
Agreement").

         Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have
the meanings set forth in the Partnership Agreement.

         WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.1 of the Partnership Agreement, the
General Partner, without the consent of the Limited Partners, may amend the
Partnership Agreement by executing a written instrument setting forth the terms
of such amendment; and

         WHEREAS, the General Partner deems advisable an amendment to Section
19.14 of the Partnership Agreement in order to clarify the requirements for
notice of certain transactions.

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Partnership Agreement is hereby amended by changing
Section 19.14 thereof so that, as amended, such section shall read as follows:

         19.14 Notice for Certain Transactions. In the event of (a) a
dissolution or liquidation of the Partnership or the General Partner, (b) a
merger, consolidation or combination of the Partnership or the General Partner
with or into another Person in which the General Partner is not the surviving
entity or in which a vote of the stockholders of the General Partner is required
(including the events set forth in Section 17.2), (c) the sale of all or
substantially all of the assets of the Partnership or the General Partner, or
(d) the transfer by the General Partner of all or any part of its interest in
the Partnership, the General Partner shall give written notice thereof to each
Limited Partner at least twenty (20) Trading Days prior to the effective date
or, to the extent applicable, record date of such transaction, whichever comes
first.

                  [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank.]
<PAGE>   2
         IN WITNESS WHEREOF this agreement has been executed as of the date
first above written.

                        BRADLEY REAL ESTATE, INC.



                        Thomas P. D'Arcy
                        Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER OF A BATEMENT

Appellate case name: Ex Parte Julio Gialito Aruizu

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 5

- 00 250

- CR

Trial court case number: 1 94 3 590

Trial court: County Criminal Court at Law No. 7 of Harris County

Appellant, Julio Gialito Aruizu , has perfected an appeal from the trial court ’s order

den ying his applica tion for a writ of habeas corpus. We abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.

A lthough the trial court signed a judgment denying appellant’s requested relief

, no findings of fact or conclusion s of law are included in the order or with the clerk’s record filed in

this Court , as article 11.072, § 7(a ) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires

. 1 We, therefore, remand the cause for the trial court to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law, separate and apart from any docket sheet notations in this case, in conjunction with the trial court’s denial of appellant’s application for a writ of habeas corpus. See Ex parte Villanueva , 252 S.W.3d 391, 396 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (quoting T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 11.072,
§ 7(a) (West S upp. 2014) ) (“‘ If the court determines from the face of an application or documents attached to the application that the applicant is manifestly entitled to no relief, the court shall enter a written order denying the application as frivolous

. ’ ” ; otherwise trial court is required to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law along with written order ); Ex parte

Zantos

- Cuebas

, 429 S.W3d 8 3, 9 1

– 92 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet. ) (remanding c ase for entry of findings of fact and conclu sions of law after holding that trial court erred in denying application as frivolous). We direct the trial court to make the appropriate findings and conclusions.

The trial court clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law in conjunction with the denial of appellant’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, and any other findings and recommendations the trial

1 The clerk’s record filed in this Court includes onl y the “State’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,” filed on February 13, 201 5

.court deems appropriate. The supplemental clerk’s record shall be filed with this Court no later

than 30 days from the date of this order

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.5 (c) (2).

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from t his Court’s active

docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the supplemental clerk’s

record i s filed with the Clerk of this Court.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: April 14, 2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE NINE
MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER
ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          33,780
<SECURITIES>                                     6,225
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,637<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     14,710
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                66,058
<PP&E>                                          27,280<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 104,491
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,249
<BONDS>                                          5,928
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      56,314
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   104,491
<SALES>                                        247,066
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               270,003
<CGS>                                          229,539
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  243,648
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 105
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,937
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,266
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,671
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,671
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18
<FN>
<F1>THE ASSET VALUES FOR RECEIVABLES AND PP&E REPRESENT AMOUNTS NET OF
ALLOWANCES AND DEPRECIATION, RESPECTIVELY.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Joseph PETERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

No. 4470.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Nov. 30, 1979.

*1255Allan Beiswenger, Asst. Public Defender, Bethel, Brian Shortell, Public Defender, Anchorage, for appellant.

Victor Krumm, Dist. Atty., Bethel, Av-rum M. Gross, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for ap-pellee.

Before RABINOWITZ, C. J., and CON-NOR, BOOCHEVER, BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of the crime of manslaughter and sentenced to an eighteen year term. In a drunken state he beat to death the woman with whom he had been living. Appellant is an alcoholic and has four prior felony convictions: two rapes, assault with a deadly weapon, and possession of a firearm by a felon. The presen-tence report concluded that appellant is dangerous and recommended a maximum sentence. We do not regard the sentence as excessive.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.19
                                                                   -------------



     The following is a description of the relocation loan granted to Timothy C.
Wentworth, Executive Vice President, Client Strategy and Service. The loan is
not the subject of a formal agreement between Mr. Wentworth and the Company.

     In January 1999, the Company granted Timothy C. Wentworth a relocation loan
     of $200,000 at a zero percent annual interest rate. The Company will
     forgive this loan at the rate of 25% per year over four years. The largest
     amount outstanding under the loan during 2001 was $100,000. As of January
     2002, the loan had an outstanding balance of $50,000. The remaining
     principal balance will be forgiven on December 31, 2002.
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

At January 31, 2011, consolidated, wholly-owned
subsidiaries of Cascade Corporation were as follows:



|                                                   |  |                          
|-------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------
|Name of Subsidiary                                 |  | Place of Incorporation   
|Cascade Xiamen Forklift Truck Attachment Co., Ltd. |  | Peoples Republic of China
|Cascade Hebei Forks Co., Ltd.                      |  | Peoples Republic of China
|Cascade (Africa) Pty. Ltd.                         |  | South Africa             
|Cascade Korea Limited                              |  | South Korea              
|Cascade (U.K.) Limited                             |  | United Kingdom           
|Cascade BV                                         |  | The Netherlands          
|Cascade (Scandinavia) Hydraulik A.B.               |  | Sweden                   
|Cascade Hispania S.A.                              |  | Spain                    
|Cascade (France) S.A.R.L.                          |  | France                   
|Cascade France MHP, S.A.R.L.                       |  | France                   
|Cascade GmbH                                       |  | Germany                  
|Cascade (Japan) Limited                            |  | United States            
|Cascade (Canada) Ltd.                              |  | Canada                   
|Cascade Kenhar Ltd.                                |  | United Kingdom           
|Cascade Italia S.r.l.                              |  | Italy                    
|Hyco-Cascade Ltd. (N.Z.)                           |  | New Zealand              
|Cascade (Australia) Pty. Ltd.                      |  | Australia                
|Cascade IFSC Ltd.                                  |  | Ireland                  
|PSM, LLC                                           |  | United States            
|American Compaction Equipment, Inc.                |  | United States            
|Cascade India Material Handling Private Limited    |  | India                    

The names of certain subsidiaries
have been omitted because when considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary they would not, as of January 31, 2011, constitute a Significant Subsidiary as defined in Rule 1-02(w) of Regulation S-X.
IA 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 70 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibiting 

the delegation of the legislative powers granted to Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 26, 2019 

Mr. PERRY submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States prohibiting the delegation of the legislative powers 

granted to Congress. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

9 for ratification: 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 70 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. Congress may not delegate any of the 

3 legislative powers granted to Congress under article I or 

4 any article of amendment to any other authority of the 

5 United States, any State, or any private authority. 

6 ‘‘SECTION 2. Congress may enact such legislation as 

7 it considers appropriate, and the President may rescind 

8 or terminate any rule, regulation, or order as the Presi9 dent considers appropriate, to address the treatment of 

10 any legislative power delegated by Congress prior to the 

11 ratification of this article.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
#### Kathy Fox, Individually and as Parent of Kristy Fox, an Infant, Appellant, v Lamont A. Martin et al., Respondents.

—Mercure, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (White, J.), entered November 14, 1990 in Montgomery County, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff’s infant daughter when she was bitten by defendants’ dog. The complaint alleges, *inter alia,*that the dog was dangerous and that defendants should have known of its vicious propensities. Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Supreme Court granted the motion and plaintiff now appeals.

We affirm. Defendants supported their motion with deposition testimony that, to the best of their knowledge, the dog had never previously bitten anyone or otherwise evidenced vicious propensities. Inasmuch as proof of the animal’s ferocious nature and a defendant’s knowledge thereof is essential to a cause of action for injuries sustained in an attack by a dog *(see, Muller v McKesson,*73 NY 195, 199; *Lynch v Nacewicz,*126 AD2d 708; 5A Warren, Negligence in the New York Courts, Animals, §§ 4.02-4.04, at 133-135 [3d ed]), this showing established, prima facie, defendants’ entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med.*
      *876
      *Center,*64 NY2d 851, 853; *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562; *Lynch v Nacewicz, supra,*at 709; *Panzer v Harding,*118 AD2d 842, 843; *Russell v Lepre,*99 AD2d 489; *but see, Stoop v Kurtz,*121 AD2d 529, 530). Accordingly, plaintiff’s failure to come forward with contrary evidence required Supreme Court to grant the motion *(see, Zuckerman v City of New York, supra).*

Weiss, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
Ka th l e e n S e b e l i u s i s s u b s t i tu t e d f o rh e rp r e d e c e s s o r , Mi c h a e l O. * L e a v itt, a s S e c r e ta ry o f

th e D e p a r tm e n t o f

H e a lth a n d H u m a n S e rv ic e s , p u r s u a n t to F ed. R . A pp . P . 43 (c )( 2).

T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt ** e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on *** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T P A U L M E S S E R , C al i forni a M edi care b e n e f i c i a ry ; DO ROTHY CALABRE SE , M . D . , C al i forni a M edi ca re ph ys i ci an prov i der, P l ai n t i ffs - A p p el l an t s, v. K A TH LEEN SEBELI U S, Se c r e t a ry , U . S. * D epartm entof H ea l th and H um an S e rv ic e s ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 07- 56622 D . C . N o . C V -0 6 -0 1 2 1 7 -C JC ME MOR AN DU M **

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia C orm a c J . C a rne y , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 5, 2010 *** 

# FI LED APR21 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS07- 56622 2 B efo re: R Y M E R , M cK E O W N , an d P A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P aul M es se r and D orothy C al abre se , M . D . appeal pro se f rom the di stri ct c our t ’ s j udgm e ntdi s m i s s i ng the i ra c t i on a l l e gi ng tha tde f e nda nt s ’ de ni a l of re i m bu rs em entcl ai m s f or transfe r f

ac t or therapy vi ol at ed vari ou s c i vi l and cri m i nal f e de r a l s t a tut e s a nd the F our t e e nth A m e ndm e nt . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o , Ka is e rv . B lu e Cr o s s o f C a l. , 347 F . 3d 1107, 1 1 1 1 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) , a n d w e a f f i rm. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y det erm i ned thati tl ac ked subj ec tm att er ju r is d ic tio n o v e rth e a c tio n b e c au s e M e s s e ra n d C a lab r e s e f a ile d to e x h au s t th e ir a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s u n d e rth e M e d ic a r e A c t p r io rto f ilin g th e a c tio n . See 42 U . S . C . §§ 1395f

f ( b) ( 1) ( A ) , 1395i i ( i nc orpor a t i ng 42 U . S . C . § 405( g) - ( h) by r e f e r e nc e , a nd thus pr ovi di ng tha tj udi c i a l r e vi e w i s onl y a va i l abl e a f t e rahe a r i ng and the fi nal deci si on of the S ec re t ary of the D epartm entof H ea l th and H um an S e rv ic e s ) ; H

ec klerv. R i ng er , 4 6 6 U . S . 6 0 2 , 6 1 4 -1 6 (1 9 8 4 ) (st at i n g th atcl ai m s ari se un der the M edi ca re A ct , and are s ubj ec tt o i t s e xh aust i on re qu i re m ent s, i f they a re i nextri cabl y i nt ertw i ned w i th cl ai m s f or M edi care benefi t s) . M es se r and C al abre se ’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. AF F I RME D.
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 4 (Monday, January 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 940]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00075]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION


Sunshine Act Meetings; Farm Credit Administration Board

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the 
Sunshine Act, of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit Administration 
Board (Board).

DATE AND TIME: The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the 
offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on 
January 10, 2013, from 9:00 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes 
its business.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm 
Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056.

ADDRESSES: Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, 
Virginia 22102-5090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Parts of this meeting of the Board will be 
open to the public (limited space available) and parts will be closed 
to the public. In order to increase the accessibility to Board 
meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements in 
advance. The matters to be considered at the meeting are:

Open Session

Approval of Minutes

    <bullet> December 13, 2012

Reports

    <bullet> Auditor's Report on FCA FY 2012/2011 Financial Statements

Closed Session*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    *Session Closed-Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> Executive Meeting with Auditors

    Dated: January 2, 2013.
Dale L. Aultman,
Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
[FR Doc. 2013-00075 Filed 1-3-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6410

LEVERN HENRY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (CA-95-3971-23BD)

Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: October 15, 1997

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Levern Henry, Appellant Pro Se. Lauri J. Soles, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994) (current

version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny

a certificate of probable cause to appeal, and dismiss the appeal

on the reasoning of the district court. Henry v. South Carolina,

No. CA-95-3971-23BD (D.S.C. Feb. 5, 1997). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521

U.S. ___, 1997 WL 338568 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). We

also deny Appellant's motion to stay state court proceedings, his

motion for leave to file a formal brief in this court, and his

requests for general relief contained therein. 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.

DISMISSED