alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.2

                             Supreme Holdings, Inc.
                        3027 Marina Bay Drive - Suite 105
                 League City, Texas 77573 Telephone 713-621-4799


June 3, 2004

United Managers Group, Inc.
12001 Network, Building F
Suite 200
San Antonio, Texas 78249

Gentlemen,

This letter agreement is intended to set out certain agreements and
understandings between Supreme Holdings, Inc. ("Supreme") and United Managers
Group, Inc. ("UMG"). It is agreed and understood between the parties that
Supreme executed a promissory note (the "Note") in favor of UMG in the original
sum of up to $2,000,000.00 on April 15, 2003. The Note had a maturity date of
April 15, 2004. In February 2004, the parties agreed to exchange the amount of
all sums due under the Note for shares of Series A Cumulative Convertible
Preferred Stock ("Series A Stock") having a face value of $100.00 per share. By
resolution of the Board of Directors of Supreme, two blocks of Series A Stock
were issued to UMG, totaling 27,191 shares and representing $2,719,100.00 of
advances by UMG to Supreme. UMG continues to make advances to Supreme and
desires to do so under the terms of the Note.

UMG hereby agrees that the Maturity Date of the Note, as set forth therein is
extended to April 15, 2005. Supreme hereby agrees that it shall be bound by all
of the terms of the Note, as extended.

If the foregoing correctly reflects your understanding of our agreements, please
so indicate by executing two (2) copies of this letter agreement in the space
provided below. Retain one (1) copy for your files and return one (1) copy to
the undersigned.

Very truly yours,

Supreme Holdings, Inc.


         /s/ Charles T. Phillips
-----------------------------------------------------
Charles T. Phillips, President and CEO

AGREED and ACCEPTED
This 3rd day of June, 2004.


United Managers Group, Inc.


         /s/ Charles E. Pircher
-----------------------------------------------------
Charles E. Pircher, General Manager
Corporate Capital Trust II 8-K


 


Exhibit 10.1


 


 


 


SECOND
AMENDMENT TO THE EXPENSE SUPPORT AND CONDITIONAL REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT 


This
second amendment to the Amended and Restated Expense Support and Conditional Reimbursement Agreement (this “Second Amendment”)
is made as of September 26, 2016, by and among CORPORATE CAPITAL TRUST II, a Delaware statutory trust, (“Company”),
CNL FUND ADVISORS II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“CNL”) and KKR CREDIT ADVISORS (US) LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company (“KKR”).


WHEREAS,
the Company, CNL and KKR are parties to that certain Amended and Restated Expense Support and Conditional Reimbursement Agreement
dated September 24, 2015 (the “Agreement”); and


WHEREAS,
the parties amended the Agreement on May 10, 2016 by entering into an First Amendment to Amended and Restated Expense Support
and Conditional Reimbursement Agreement (the “First Amendment”); and


WHEREAS,
in accordance with Section 4.5 of the Agreement, the parties desire to further amend the Agreement as hereinafter set forth.


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the covenants hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:


1.       


The
reference to “September 30, 2016” in Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby deleted, and “December 31, 2016”
is inserted in the place of such deleted reference.


2.       


Full
Force and Effect. Except as modified hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. All capitalized terms shall
mean the same as in the Agreement.


3.       


Counterparts.
This Second Amendment may be executed in more than one counterpart, each of which will be deemed to be an original but all of
which together will constitute one and the same instrument. This Second Amendment may also be executed electronically.


4.       


Governing
Law. This Second Amendment shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of New York, without
regard to conflict of law provisions.


 


 


 


[remainder
of page blank; signatures follow]


 


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Second Amendment to be duly executed as of the date first above written.


	 	CNL
    FUND ADVISORS II, LLC
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Steven D. Shackelford	 
	 	Name:	Steven D. Shackelford
	 	Title:	Chief Financial
    Officer
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	KKR
    CREDIT ADVISORS (US) LLC
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Jeffrey B. Van Horn	 
	 	Name:	Jeffrey B. Van Horn
	 	Title:	Authorized Signatory
    
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	CORPORATE
    CAPITAL TRUST II
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Thomas K. Sittema	 
	 	Name:	Thomas K. Sittema
	 	Title:	Chief Executive
    Officer
# C_2016402EN.01006101.xml

| 31.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/61

---

Action brought on 16 September 2016 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO (€$)

(Case T-665/16)

(2016/C 402/72)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska, legal adviser, K. Gajek, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the symbols ‘€’ and ‘$’ — Application for registration No 13 839 998

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2016 in Case R 2086/2015-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

WERNER MICHAEL FISK, ) 

Petitioner, )

vs. ) No. 3:04-CV-2643-H

) ECF

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director, )

Texas Department of Criminal )

Justice, Institutional Division, )

Respondent. )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the

Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings

and Conclusions of the Court. Accordingly, Respondent’s Objections filed on June 1, 2007, as well

as Petitioner’s Objections filed on June 12, 2007, are hereby OVERRULED.

SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this 12 day of June, 2007. th

 

 Case 3:04-cv-02643-H Document 17 Filed 06/12/07 Page 1 of 1 PageID 89
# C_2016454EN.01003001.xml

| 5.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 454/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 454/30

---

Appeal brought on 3 October 2016 by HB against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-125/15, HB v Commission

(Case T-706/16 P)

(2016/C 454/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: HB (Schweich, Germany) (represented by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) in Case F-125/15, HB v Commission;
  giving judgment itself, |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) in Case F-125/15, HB v Commission;

giving judgment itself,

| — | annul the decision not to promote the appellant under the 2014 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision not to promote the appellant under the 2014 promotion exercise;

| — | order the Commission to pay to the appellant the sum of EUR 15 000 in respect of non-material harm; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay to the appellant the sum of EUR 15 000 in respect of non-material harm;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds, alleging several errors of law on the part of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST).

First, the appellant alleges that the CST erred in law in taking the view that the appointing authority had carried out an effective comparative assessment of the merit points, that is to say, on an objective and equal basis, whereas it confined itself to disregarding the appellant’s merit points for 2013, because the 2013 staff report did not contain an assessment, without attempting to obtain comparable sources of information or information.

Second, the appellant considers that the CST erred in law in finding that the absence of an assessment in the 2013 staff report is attributable to the appellant and that the appointing authority was prevented from assessing the merit points for that year by the fact that there was no challenge by the appellant within the period prescribed in the Staff Regulations.

Third, the CST, according to the appellant, erred in law in finding that she had not adduced evidence to show that there was discrimination based on gender, whereas her staff report lacks any substantial assessment exclusively because of her long-term absences justified by her periods of maternity leave and pregnancy-related illness.

---
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ANA M. RAMIREZ

, Appellant,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 15

- 4626

[ November 9, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Lynn Rosenthal , Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE10044390

.

Jonathan Kline, Jonathan Kline, P.A., Weston, for appellant.

Kimberly S. Mello, Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Tampa, and Michele

Stocker, Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C IKLIN

, C ONNER and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
STATE of Louisiana v. Demond D. SANDIFER, Sam Newman, Tyron Harden

NO. 2018-KO-1310

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2019

Denied.
# C_2016175EN.01002601.xml

| 17.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/26

---

Action brought on 22 March 2016 — Tulliallan Burlington v EUIPO — Burlington Fashion (Burlington)

(Case T-122/16)

(2016/C 175/30)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Tulliallan Burlington Ltd (St Helier, Jersey) (represented by: A. Norris, (Barrister

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Burlington Fashion GmbH (Schmallenberg, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘Burlington’ — International registration designating the European Union No 982 021

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2016 in Case R 2409/2013-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and reject the contested mark in respect of all of the contested goods; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and reject the contested mark in respect of all of the contested goods;

| — | order the payment of the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the payment of the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(5), 8(4) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(5), 8(4) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**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 Lakeside Mortgage Fund, LLC (the
“Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paula
      M. Lewis, President and Chief Executive Officer of Lakeside Financial Group,
      Inc., the Manager of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 result of operations of the Company.








Dated:  August
      19, 2008


/S/Paula
                M. Lewis,President
                & CEO of ManagerLakeside
                Financial Group, Inc.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, David S. Kalt, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of optionsXpress Holdings, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) [Reserved]c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors:a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.       Date: November 10, 2005        /s/ DAVID S. KALT         Name: David S. Kalt    Title: *Chief Executive Officer*
Bobby COFIELD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-210

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 26, 2019 Rehearing Denied March 28, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Carey Deshawn Forris-Clemons v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-16-00437-CR

Trial court case number: 1398951

Trial court: 174th District Court of Harris County

We abated this appeal and remanded this cause to the trial court for a hearing concerning 

appellant’s certification of the right to appeal. On February 28, 2017, a supplemental clerk’s 

record was filed containing a certification indicating that appellant has the right to appeal. The 

trial court also appointed counsel, Randy Martin.

Accordingly, we reinstate this appeal on the active docket. The reporter’s record is due 

to be filed 30 days from the date of this order. Appellant’s brief will be due 30 days after the 

reporter’s record is filed.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _/s/ Harvey Brown_

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: March 9, 2017
# C_2016296EN.01002401.xml

| 16.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/24

---

Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Scheffler v. EUIPO — Doc Generici (docfauna)

(Case T-299/16)

(2016/C 296/32)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Manfred Scheffler (Leininingen, Germany) (represented by: T. Büttner, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Doc Generici Srl (Milano, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘docfauna’ — Application for registration No 12 660 056

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2016 in Case R 885/2015-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 6 March 2015 upholding opposition No B 2 354 523. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 6 March 2015 upholding opposition No B 2 354 523.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009;

---
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 10977 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

JOHNNY MANUEL HERNANDEZ
,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:17

- CR

- 31

- 1

Before SOUTHWICK, WILLETT, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Johnny Manuel

Hernandez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Hernandez h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 20 , 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-10977 Document: 00514520869 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2018No. 17

- 10977

2 nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leav e to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities
herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 17-10977 Document: 00514520869 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2018
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 257 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to prohibit the Securities 

and Exchange Commission from requiring an issuer to make climaterelated disclosures that are not material to investors, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2025 

Mrs. BICE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to prohibit 

the Securities and Exchange Commission from requiring 

an issuer to make climate-related disclosures that are 

not material to investors, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop Environmental 

5 Calculations Act of 2025’’ or the ‘‘SEC Act of 2025’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 257 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON REQUIRING AN ISSUER TO MAKE 

2 CLIMATE-RELATED DISCLOSURES THAT ARE 

3 NOT MATERIAL TO INVESTORS. 

4 Section 23 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

5 (15 U.S.C. 78w) is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘(e) PROHIBITION ON REQUIRING AN ISSUER TO

8 MAKE CLIMATE-RELATED DISCLOSURES THAT ARE NOT

9 MATERIAL TO INVESTORS.—The Commission may not re10 quire an issuer to make climate-related disclosures that 

11 are not material to investors.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Case 3:04-cv-02294-D Document 16 Filed 02/11/05 Page 1 of 11 PageID 164
Case 3:04-cv-02294-D Document 16 Filed 02/11/05 Page 2 of 11 PageID 165
Case 3:04-cv-02294-D Document 16 Filed 02/11/05 Page 3 of 11 PageID 166
Case 3:04-cv-02294-D Document 16 Filed 02/11/05 Page 4 of 11 PageID 167
Case 3:04-cv-02294-D Document 16 Filed 02/11/05 Page 5 of 11 PageID 168
Case 3:04-cv-02294-D Document 16 Filed 02/11/05 Page 6 of 11 PageID 169
Case 3:04-cv-02294-D Document 16 Filed 02/11/05 Page 7 of 11 PageID 170
Case 3:04-cv-02294-D Document 16 Filed 02/11/05 Page 8 of 11 PageID 171
Case 3:04-cv-02294-D Document 16 Filed 02/11/05 Page 9 of 11 PageID 172
Case 3:04-cv-02294-D Document 16 Filed 02/11/05 Page 10 of 11 PageID 173
Case 3:04-cv-02294-D Document 16 Filed 02/11/05 Page 11 of 11 PageID 174