alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
THIRD AMENDMENT TO

AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF REALY PROPERTY


 


THIS THIRD AMENDMENT
TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF REAL PROPERTY (this “Amendment”), is made May 11, 2012, by and
among, AR CAPITAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, formerly known as American Realty Capital II, LLC, (“Buyer”)
and THE PARTIES IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A” of the Agreement as hereinafter defined (individually a “Seller”
collectively, the “Sellers”).


 


WHEREAS, Buyer and
Sellers entered into that certain Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Real Property, with an Effective Date of February 8, 2012,
as amended by that certain First Amendment to Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Real Property dated as of February 28, 2012 and
as further amended by that certain Second Amendment to Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Real Property dated as of March 12, 2012
(collectively the “Agreement”) , with regard to the Property, more particularly described in the Agreement.
Buyer and Seller wish to amend the Agreement as provided herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the mutual promise contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree that the Agreement shall be amended as follows:


 


		1.	Closing. Notwithstanding anything in the Agreement to the contrary nor any other agreements
or understandings to the contrary between Buyer and Seller, the Closing shall occur on May 30, 2012. Buyer shall have the right
to advance the Closing upon two (2) business days written notice to Seller.






 


		2.	Miscellaneous. Except as expressly modified hereby, the terms of the Agreement as previously
amended, shall remain in full force and effect as written. Any capitalized term used in this Agreement and not otherwise defined
herein, shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in the Agreement. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts,
each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which, when taken together shall constitute on agreement.



 


 


Signatures appear on following pages.






    	 



    	 	



    
 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have
executed this Amendment as of the day and year first set forth above.


 







 


	 	SELLER:
	 	 
	 	THE PARTIES IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”
	 	 
	 	By: DAVENPORT EXCHANGE, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company
	 	 
	 	
        By: INLAND PRIVATE CAPITAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
        its sole member, as Attorney in Fact under written power or attorney which signs on their behalf

        

	 	 
	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ Patricia DelRosso
	 	 	Name: Patricia DelRosso
	 	 	Title: President


 


  


	 	BUYER
	 	 
	 	
        AR CAPITAL, LLC,

        a Delaware limited liability company

        

	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ Edward M. Weil, Jr.
	 	 	Name: Edward M. Weil, Jr.
	 	 	Title: President
#### Willis B. Sayre, Resp’t, *v.*The People of the State of New York, App’lts.

*(Court of Appeals,*

*Filed June 25, 1891.)*

Board of claims—Practice—Appeal.

Where the court of appeals modifies an award of the board of claims by simply increasing it, the new amount stands in the place of the old as of the same date and the modified award bears interest from the same date as the original award.

Appeal from a judgment of the board of claims.

*Chas. F.*Tabor, att’y-gen’l for app’lts; *Gabriel L. Smith,*for resp’t.

Per Curiam.

The original award in this case was $3,000, and it was made March 9, 1886. Upon appeal from that award to this court, we modified it by increasing it to $8,136, and affirmed it as thus modified, with costs. The *remittitur*from this court was sent down to the board of claims, and thereupon the board made new findings of fact and of law, and awarded to the claimant $10,657.55, which was made up of the $8,136, the interest thereon to the date of the award and the costs of the prior appeal. The attorney-gen eral filed exceptions to this award, and then brought this appeal therefrom to this court.

The practice since the *remittitur*was sent down from this court, has been quite irregular. Upon the prior appeal, we simply modified the prior award by increasing it. We made no other alteration, not even changing the date. The effect of our decision 'was, that the $8,136 should stand in the place of the $3,000 as of the same date. There was the same award simply increased. The modified award would bear interest from the same date as the original award. If the claimant would have been entitled to interest upon the original award, he becomes entitled to interest upon the modified award from the same date. Upon the prior *remittitur*from this court, the prior award, without altering its date, must be increased to $8,136, and the claimant must have his costs of that appeal, and if then the financial officers of the state refuse to pay interest upon the award from its date, the claimant must take his remedy by *mandamus,*or by filing a new claim with the board of claims for his interest The question of interest will doubtless be disposed of in the same way as is usual with other awards made by the board of claims. That question is not before us now, and we make no determination in reference thereto.

The award appealed from must be reversed, with costs of appeal to be paid by the claimant

All concur, except Finch, J., absent
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.01

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-55828, 333-54886, 333-48582, 333-46252 and
333-84545) and on Form S-3 (No. 333-80419) of Homestore.com, Inc. of our
report dated March 16, 2001, except as to Notes 3 and 21, which are as of
March 11, 2002, relating to the financial statements of Homestore.com, Inc.
which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A. We also consent to the
incorporation by reference of our report dated March 11, 2002 relating to the
financial statement schedule, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-
K/A.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Century City, California
March 11, 2002
New York Common Pleas—General Term.

Filed April 30, 1891.

#### Alfred L. Bullowa, Resp’t, *v.*Austin Scykora, App’lt.

Appeal from seventh district court.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### Grace M. Graham, as Executrix of Edward C. Clifford, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*Israel O. Blake et al., as Executors of Israel O. Blake, Deceased, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Argued June 16, 1943;

decided October 14, 1943.

*654
      *Harry Bijur, Otto G. Sommerich*and *Harold H. Herts*for appellant.

*Thomas F. Daly, Joyce Stanley*and *Frank P. TJjford*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippet, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
#### Robinson v. The Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R’y Co

1. Continuance: granted without good cause: costs. Where u party asks and procures an order for a continuance upon an insufficient showing, and the order is accompanied with an order for the costs to be taxed to him, he cannot accept of the continuance, and afterwards complain of the order as to the costs. [Reed, J., *dissenting.]*

*Appeal from Appanoose Circuit Court.*

Friday, December 16.

Action for a personal inj ury to the plaintiff’s intestate. The plaintiff, at the term at which the case should have been tried, amended his petition. Thereupon the defendant applied for a continuance on the ground that, after the issue had been changed by the amendment, it was not prepared to go to trial. The court granted the continuance, but ordered that the costs be taxed to the defendant. From this order in respect to costs the defendant appeals.

*T. 8. Wright*and Tannehill, *Vermillion dh Haynes^*for appellant.

*T. M.*Fee, for appellee.

Adams, Oh. J.

We do not think that the issue was so changed as to call for evidence different from that apparently called for under the original issue. It appears to us, there*507fore, that the continuance was unnecessary. The defendant then might have protected itself by waiving the order for a continuance, after seeing that it was accompanied by the order for the payment of costs. After accepting the unnecessary order for a continuance, accompanied by the order for the payment of costs, we do not think that it should be heard to complain of the latter order. Affirmed.

Reed, J., dissenting.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel PINEDA-HIGUERA, a.k.a. Rodolfo Almason-Avila, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-11692 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(March 10, 2017)

Tracia M. King, John Andrew Horn, Lawrence R. Sommerfeld, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Manuel Pineda-Higuera, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before MARCUS, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Lynn Fant Merritt, appointed counsel for Manuel Pineda-Higuera in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and Pineda-Higuera’s- conviction and sentence is AFFIRMED.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 9 I 0 1 20

. TAMBERCON, LLC v . J ACQUELI NE BOSBY et a l

.
Up o n rev i ew o f th i s ap p l i cat i o n fo r i nt erl o cu to ry ap p eal
, i t i s h ereb y GRANTED. Ap p l i can t T am b erco n , L LC s h al l h av e ten d ay s fro m t h e dat e o f t h i s

o rd er t o fi l e a n o t i ce of ap p eal i n t h e t ri al co u rt

. If Tam berco n , LLC h as al read y fi l ed

a t i m el y n o t i ce o f ap p eal fro m t h e o rd er at i s s u e h ere, i t n eed no t fi l e a s eco nd n o t i ce. Th e cl er k o f t he t ri al co u rt i s d i rect ed t o i n cl u d e a co p y o f t hi s o rd er i n t he reco rd

t ran s m i t t ed t o t h e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. December 17, 2018

12/17/2018
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2011

- 0911 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2010

-NM

- 248

-AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into a nd then out of the changed cell

. **Estimated Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

c ost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet 

### Inspection 2 .0 $ 170.00 $ 170.00 

### 2 $ 340.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 340 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $
**On**
**- Condi** **tion Costs:** Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- h ours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

( @ $8 5 /hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product



### Replacement 2.0 $ 170.00 

### 525 $ 695.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be us ed to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO
* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES * NO
* Explanation: **Regulatory F lexibility Act:**  Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES * NO


### * Explanation 

### :
#### William Z. Brown, Respondent, *v.*The Town of Canton, Appellant.

(Submitted April 16, 1872;

decided April 23, 1872.)

*663Pt.atmttw. a minor, enlisted, and was credited upon the quota of the town of Canton, St. Lawrence county. The town had voted to pay $300 bounty to those who should thus enlist. It was agreed, between the plaintiff, his father and the supervisor of the town, that the father should receive the bounty, and the bonds of the town for the amount of the bounty, made payable to plaintiff or order, were issued and delivered to the father. Upon the maturity of the bonds they were paid to the assignee of the father. They were not indorsed by the plaintiff, who brings this action to recover the amount thereof of the town. *Held,*that the plaintiff had no interest in or title to the bonds; that his father was the equitable owner, and that defendant was not liable to plaintiff thereon.

*W. G. Godke*for the appellant.

*Foote & James*for the respondent.

Gkover, J.,

reads for reversal and new trial. All concur. Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide event.
#### In the Matter of Frank C. Uitz, Jr., Appellant, against Frederick Moran et al., as Commissioners of the State Board of Parole, Respondent.

Submitted January 3, 1944;

decided January 13, 1944.

*Frank C. Uits, Jr.,*in person, for motion.

*Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (Wortley P. Paul*of counsel), opposed.

Motion for leave to prosecute appeals as a poor person denied on the ground no appeal lies as of right from the orders appealed from.
Exhibit 31.1**Certifications Pursuant to 17 CFR Section 240.13a-14**I, Richard M. Osborne, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of John D. Oil and GasCompany certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of John D. Oil and Gas Company;  2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annual report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this annual report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation and;  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingand; 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent function): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information and;  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.   Date: April 2, 2007     By: /s/ Richard M. Osborne Richard M. Osborne
#### Karine MOVSESYAN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-73887

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

Filed October 3, 2017

A. Ashley Gambourian, Attorney, Law Offices of A. Ashley Gambourian, Burbank, CA, for Petitioner

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Victor Matthew Lawrence, I, Esquire, Assistant Director, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Karine Movsesyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *Najmabadi v. Holder,**509597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Movsesyan’s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than four years after the BIA’s final order, *see 8*C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Movsesyan failed to establish a material change in circumstances in Armenia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); *Najmabadi,*597 F.3d at 990 (evidence must be material); *Toufighi v. Mukasey,*538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence immaterial in light of prior adverse credibility determination). We reject Movsesyan’s contentions that the BIA failed to consider arguments.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

.This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 3.18

ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT

DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILTY COMPANY

Mohegan Tribe Office of Commercial Records Division

5 Crow Hill Road, Uncasville, CT 06382



|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |  |                                 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------
|Space for Office Use only                                                                                                                                                                                                                
|1. NAME OF LIMITIED LIABILITY COMPANY:  Mohegan Golf, LLC                                                                                                                                                                                
|2. THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANYS ARTICLES OF ORGANIZATION ARE (check A., B. or C.):  __x___ A. AMENDED ______ B. AMENDED AND RESTATED ______ C. RESTATED                                                                               
|3. TEXT OF EACH AMENDMENT/RESTATEMENT:  Article 5 of the Articles of Organization is amended to read, in its entirety:  Article 5. MANAGEMENT: The Management of the limited liability company shall be vested in one or more managers.
|4. EXECUTION  Dated this 8thday of April 2008                                                                                                                                                                                            
|Mitchell Etess                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |  | /s/    MITCHELL GROSSINGER ETESS
|Print or type name of
signatory and capacity                                                                                                                                                                                              |  | Signature                       

Reference an 8x11 attachment if additional space is required