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

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.13


                PRENTISS PROPERTIES ACQUISITION PARTNERS, L.P.


    Third Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited
         Partnership of Prentiss Properties Acquisition Partners, L.P.


                                   RECITALS


          A.  Belair Real Estate Corporation ("Assignor") desires to assign and
                                               --------
Belcrest Realty Corporation ("Assignee") desires to acquire 270,000 Series B
                              --------
Cumulative Redeemable Perpetual Preferred Units (the "Series B Preferred Units")
                                                      ------------------------
of Prentiss Properties Acquisition Partners, L.P. (the "Partnership").
                                                        -----------

          B.  Pursuant to Article XI of the Second Amended and Restated
Agreement of Limited Partnership, as amended (as so amended, the "Agreement"),
                                                                  ---------
of the Partnership, Prentiss Properties I, Inc. as the sole general partner of
the Partnership (the "General Partner"), desires to amend the Agreement to admit
                      ---------------
Assignee as a Substitute Limited Partner with respect to the Assigned Units.

          NOW, THEREFORE, the General Partner hereby adopts the following
amendment to the Agreement.

          1.  Exhibit A to the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its
entirety as set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto.
                         ---------

          2.  Assignee accepts and agrees to be bound by the terms and
provisions of the Agreement.


                           [Signature Page Follows]

<PAGE>

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the General Partner and Assignee have executed
this Third Amendment as of February 25, 1999.

                              GENERAL PARTNER

                              PRENTISS PROPERTIES I, INC.



                              By: /s/ Thomas F. August
                                  ---------------------------------
                                  Name:  Thomas F. August
                                  Title: President


                              ASSIGNEE AND SUBSTITUTE LIMITED PARTNER:

                              BELCREST REALTY CORPORATION


                              By: /s/ Thomas E. Faust
                                  ---------------------------------
                                  Name:  Thomas E. Faust
                                  Title: Executive Vice President
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION Ill 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

David K. Paylor, Director Virginia Department ofEnvironmental Quality 629 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23218 Dear Mr. Paylor: 

### !JUN 2 4

## 2015

On June 1, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to the Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Virginia Department ofEnvironmental Quality (VADEQ) revising the lists offine particulate matter (PM2
.s) maintenance and nonattainment areas in 9VAC5 Chapter 20. The changes reflect EPA's October 6, 2014 redesignation ofthe Northern Virginia area, as part ofthe Washington, DC-MD-VA area, from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.s National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively and technically complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a Direct Final Rulemaking (DFRN) action. Ifmembers ofyour staffhave any questions, they may direct them to Maria A. Pino, Office of Air Program Planning, at (215) 814-2181, or atpino.maria@epa.gov. She is the principal contact for this rulemaking. Sincerely, 

### -r-.... l

**~)** \ C\_ \l'\.0- DianaEsher, Director Air Protection Division

n 

### '..1 Printed on 100% recycled/recyclablepaper with 100%post-consumer fiber andprocess chlorine free. Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474
DraftFormforWrittenConsenttoPhotographandAddress—Agency/OrganizationAuthorizedtoPhotographNameofOrganizationRequestingPhotograph:individualDepartmentofHealthandFamilyServicesBureauof________JOfficeofLegalCounselIW.WilsonSt.Madison,WI53702NameofindividualWhoisSubjectofPhotograph:DOB:Address:City,State,ZipCodeidentifyingNumber:SignatureofSubject/GuardianSpeciiicSubjectofPhotograph:AnyphotographdepictingthesubjectofaBureauof_________investigationrelatingtotheabovenamedindividualforthefollowingtimepriod:toincludingbutnotlimitedtophotographsofinjuries,locationofaccidentorincidentorotherrelatedsubjectmatter.Other(Specify):VPurposeorneedforphotograph:Byastateagencyinordertoperformalawfullyauthorizedfunctionincluding:Investigationofallegedcaregiverlemployee/licenseemisconductinvolvingtheabovesubjectandlorprogrammonitoringandevaluationand/orfacilitylicensureorcertificationand/orindividualcertificationorlicensure.Digitalphotographstakenofthesubject(s)includedwithinthisinvestigationhavenotbeenalteredinanyway.LegalAuthority:VVciSec.50.03(2),Wis.Stats.USec.48.68WisStats.CSec.48.73Wis.Stats.UOther:(specify)StatutesrelatingtoinspectionoflicenseeNameofRequestororPhotographer:Signature:TitleorPosition:PhoneNumber:Address:DateofRequestVEsrael)dat&forms/PhotographWrittenConsentDraftForm2006
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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. 07-40201 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. WILLIAM DANIEL PICKETT, JR Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:06-CR-89-ALL
Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * William Daniel Pickett, Jr., hasappealed hisjury convictions of possession ofcocaine and cocaine base with intent to distribute. Pickett contends that the district court erred in denying his motion tocontinue the trial. A district court’s denial of a motion for a continuance “will be reversed only when the district court abused its discretion and the defendant suffered serious prejudice.” U nite d States v. Dupre

, 117 F.3d 810, 823 (5th Cir. 1997). United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 11, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-40201

2 Pickett contends that the district court’s ruling prejudiced the defense because his attorney did not have enough time to prepare tocross-examine Kyle Ogden and Sergeant Kevin Odom. Pickett complains that he did not have an opportunity to discover prior to the trial that Ogden’s criminal history report reflected erroneously that Ogden had been arrested for misdemeanor possession of crack cocaine during the period when he was cooperating with the Government, when, in fact, the arrest was for a felony offense. Pickett complains also that he did not have time to prepare to cross examine two other cooperating witnesses, Russell Collins and Raymond Abram. The fact that Ogden’s prior arrest was for a felony offense rather than a misdemeanor was before the jury. Collins’s and Abram’s testimony went to a conspiracy count, ofwhich Pickett was acquitted. Pickett has not shown that he
was seriously prejudiced because his attorney did not have an opportunity to investigate further the facts related to the criminal histories ofthe cooperating witnesses. See id.; United Statesv. Castro, 15 F.3d 417, 422–23 (5th Cir. 1994). Because the parties do not contend that Pickett should be resentenced becauseofrecent amendmentsto the Sentencing Guidelines with regard to crack cocaine offenses, we do not reach that question. The judgment is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                            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 of EvergreenBancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gerald
O. Hatler, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

/s/ Gerald O. Hatler
---------------------------------------
Gerald O. Hatler
President and Chief Executive Officer

August 11, 2006
EXHIBIT 32

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Renovo Holdings (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen Carnes, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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/ Stephen Carnes                                     |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Stephen Carnes                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
|   | Chief Executive Officer and Principal                                                                                                                                                                                                      |

Financial Officer

 

|   | November			18, 2005 |
|--------|---------------------|
EXHIBIT 12

FIRST REPUBLIC PREFERRED CAPITAL CORPORATION

(A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Merrill Lynch
Bank & Trust Co., FSB)

STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF

RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES



|                                                  |  |                                 |       |   |                                |   |       |      |  |   |        |   |  |   |        |  
|------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------- | ----- | - | ------------------------------ | - | ----- | ---- |  | - | ------ | - |  | - | ------ | -
|                                                  |  | Three Months EndedSeptember 30, |       |   | Nine Months EndedSeptember 30, |  
|($ in thousands)                                  |  | 2007                            |       |   | 2006                           |   |       | 2007 |  |   | 2006   |  
|I.       Earnings:                                |  |                                 |       |   |                                |   |       |      |  |   |        |   |  |   |        |  
|Net income                                        |  | $                               | 4,761 |   |                                | $ | 4,709 |      |  | $ | 14,589 |   |  | $ | 13,507 |  
|Fixed charges excluding preferred stock dividends |  |                                 |      |   |                                |   |      |      |  |   |       |   |  |   |       |  
|                                                  |  |                                 |       |   |                                |   |       |      |  |   |        |   |  |   |        |  
|Earnings before fixed charges                     |  | $                               | 4,761 |   |                                | $ | 4,709 |      |  | $ | 14,589 |   |  | $ | 13,507 |  
|                                                  |  |                                 |       |   |                                |   |       |      |  |   |        |   |  |   |        |  
|II.     Fixed charges:                            |  |                                 |       |   |                                |   |       |      |  |   |        |   |  |   |        |  
|Preferred stock dividends                         |  | $                               | 3,464 |   |                                | $ | 3,563 |      |  | $ | 10,568 |   |  | $ | 10,689 |  
|                                                  |  |                                 |       |   |                                |   |       |      |  |   |        |   |  |   |        |  
|III.    Ratios of earnings to fixed charges       |  |                                 | 1.37  | x |                                |   | 1.32  | x    |  |   | 1.38   | x |  |   | 1.26   | x
|                                                  |  |                                 |       |   |                                |   |       |      |  |   |        |   |  |   |        |
----

----

|   | (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 represents, the financial      condition and results of operations of the  Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                |   |   |   |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/      John daCosta                                               |   |   |   |   |
| John      daCostaChief      Financial OfficerNovember      13, 2008 |   |   |   |   |
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
             August 14, 2008
    
    By /s/ Francene LaPoint
    
    Chief Financial OfficerDate
    
    Francene LaPoint
    
    Grubb & Ellis Realty Investors, LLC,
the Manager of NNN 2003 Value Fund, LLC
(principal financial officer)
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of Gladstone Capital Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies on the date hereof, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2015 (Form 10-Q), filed concurrently herewith by the Company,
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 6, 2015



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Melissa Morrison                 
|Melissa Morrison                     
|Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.1

                         LSB CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
            AS ADDED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of LSB Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul A. Miller, Chief
Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as added by section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 of the Company as of March 31, 2005 and
      results of operations of the Company for the three months ended March 31,
      2005.

                                                    /s/ Paul A. Miller
                                                    -------------------------
                                                    Paul A. Miller
                                                    President and
                                                    Chief Executive Officer

                                                    May 13, 2005

                              24
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark Steven ROBERTS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 92-8197.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 22, 1993.

Walter M. Reaves, Jr., West, TX, (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.

Richard L. Durbin, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Ronald F. Ederer, U.S. Atty., San Antonio, TX, for plaintiff-appellee.

*827Before JONES, DeMOSS, Circuit Judges, and BARBOUR1, District Judge.

1

. Chief District Judge of the Southern District of Mississippi, sitting by designation.

DeMOSS, Circuit Judge:

On November 14, 1991, Mark Steven Roberts and Keith Vernon Hoster, working together, bought 16 ounces of amphetamine and 110 pounds of phenylacetic acid, a listed precursor chemical of amphetamine, from undercover authorities in Hillsboro, Texas. They were arrested.

By a grand jury indictment filed in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas on December 3, 1991, Roberts and Hoster were charged with conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute amphetamine. Pursuant to a plea agreement entered into on February 4, 1992, Roberts waived indictment and pled guilty to a superseding Information charging him with unlawfully possessing with the intent to distribute amphetamine. Eight days later, Hoster did the same.

Roberts and Hoster were sentenced under the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court calculated their sentences based on the amount of amphetamine and phenylacetic acid involved in the subject transaction. In calculating the effect of the phenylacetic acid on their base level offenses, the district court relied upon U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1.

Hoster appealed his sentence, arguing, *inter alia,*that the court’s application of section 2D1.1 *vis á vis*the phenylacetic acid conversion was erroneous. In a very thorough and well written opinion, a panel of this court agreed and remanded Hoster’s case to district court for resentencing in accordance with the panel’s opinion. *United States v. Hoster,*988 F.2d 1374, 1383 (5th Cir.1993).

Roberts now appeals his sentence, alleging the same error found by the panel in *Hoster.*In light of the panel decision in *Hoster,*we are bound to remand to the district court for resentencing in accordance with the direction provided therein.

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; CAUSE REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

The undersigned executive officer of WVS Financial Corp. (the
Registrant) hereby certifies that the Registrants Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



/s/ Keith A. SimpsonKeith A. Simpson
Vice-President and Chief Accounting Officer


Date: May 2, 2011



|Note: | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to WVS Financial Corp. and will be retained by WVS
Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|----- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-17-00575-CR

Jamie Fletcher, Jr., Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-DC-85-079142, HONORABLE KAREN SAGE, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A review of the record shows that on November 2, 2016, the trial court denied

appellant’s pro se motion for DNA testing filed in June 2016, see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 64.01-

.05, and that appellant filed another motion for DNA testing and appointment of counsel in

December 2016. The State filed a response to the motion for appointment of counsel, stating that 1

it did not oppose the request, and on August 10, 2017, the trial court appointed an attorney to

represent appellant under chapter 64. See id.

Appellant’s pro se notice of appeal was filed in the trial court clerk’s office on

August 15, 2017. In that document, appellant stated that he wished “to prosecute this appeal from

the judgment entered in this action on the 9[th] day of April, 1986,” referring to his conviction for

Appellant has also filed several other filings, but it does not appear any orders have been 1

entered as to those documents, nor has counsel indicated that the appeal concerns those documents.
attempted aggravated sexual assault. Following an inquiry by this Court into what was the subject

matter of the appeal and whether we could exercise jurisdiction over this matter, appellant’s

appointed attorney has explained that this is an appeal from the refusal of DNA testing but that the

trial court has not signed any orders as to the subsequent motion for DNA testing.

Because the trial court has not signed any appealable orders as to the most recent

motion for DNA testing and the time for appealing from the November 2016 order ran well before

appellant filed his notice of appeal, see Tex. R. App. P. 26.2, we dismiss the appeal for want of

jurisdiction, see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 64.05 (appeals under chapter 64 are “in the same manner

as an appeal of anyother criminal matter”); Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App.

1991) (court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless expressly granted by

law); Taylor v. State, 268 S.W.3d 752, 755 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, pet. ref’d) (same). We deny

appellant’s motion to abate the appeal.

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Field, and Bourland

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: October 26, 2017

Do Not Publish

2