alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.63

Third Amendment to Revolver Promissory Note

THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO
REVOLVER PROMISSORY NOTE dated this 1st day of July 2004, is by and among
Danzer Industries, Inc. ("Borrower") and Fair Holdings, Inc. ("Fair"), an Ohio
corporation. The parties agree as follows:

Recitals

WHEREAS, Borrower and Fair
entered into that certain Promissory Note dated August 15, 2001in the principal
amount of $1,000,000 ("Note") which was subsequently amended by that certain
First Amendment to Revolver Promissory Note dated September 31, 2003 whereby
Fair agreed to increase the amount that Borrower may borrow under the Note to
$1,500,000.00;

WHEREAS, Borrower has requested
and Fair has agreed to increase the amount that Borrower my borrow under the
Note to $3,000,000.00

WHEREAS, Fair is willing to
amend the Note subject to the terms herein and subject to the prior amendments
of the Note as herein provided;

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration
of the premises, and the mutual promises herein contained, the parties agree
that the Note shall be, and hereby is, amended as provided herein and the
parties further agree as follows:

| | 1. | Increase in the allowable principal balance:  The Note's
principal balance of $1,500,000 is hereby increased to $3,000,000.00 such that
Borrower may borrow up to a total amended principal balance on the Note of
$3,000.00.00. | 
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 

All other terms and conditions
contained in the Note shall remain the same and shall continue in full force and
effect that are not specifically amended herein and shall continue during the
amended term of the Note without change.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Borrower,
and Fair have caused this Third Amendment to Promissory Note to be executed by
its duly authorized by their representatives as of the day first written
above.

| | Fair Holdings, Inc.
By:  /s/  Timothy S. Durham
Timothy S. Durham, Chief Executive Officer

Danzer Industries, Inc.
By:  /s/  Terry Whitesell
Terry Whitesell, Chairman of the Board | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 

1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             451
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,951
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,951
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,115
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,241,015
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,951
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,473
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,115)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (24,473)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  16,358
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,115)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
PAGE 1 – OPINION AND ORDER 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

RENX GROUP, LLC, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

US BANK AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE TO 

BANK OF AMERICA, NA, SUCCESSOR 

IN INTEREST TO LASALLE BANK NA 

ON BEHALF OF THE 

CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF WMALT 

SERIES 2007-OA3; NORTHWEST 

TRUSTEE SERVICES, INC.; AND 

ARKADIY VAYNER, AN INDIVIDUAL, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 3:15-CV-01187-PK 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation in this 

case on September 28, 2015. Dkt. 27. Judge Papak recommended that the Motion to Dismiss 

(Dkt. 14), filed by Defendant U.S. Bank as Successor Trustee to Bank of America, N.A., 

Successor in Interest to LaSalle Bank NA on Behalf of Certificateholders of WMALT Series 

2007-OA3 (the “Trust”), be GRANTED. No party has filed objections. 

Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in 

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate’s findings and recommendations, “the court 

Case 3:15-cv-01187-PK Document 30 Filed 10/23/15 Page 1 of 2
PAGE 2 – OPINION AND ORDER 

shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings 

or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

If no party objects, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn, 

474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended 

to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”); 

United States. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that the 

court must review de novo magistrate’s findings and recommendations if objection is made, “but 

not otherwise”). 

Although review is not required in the absence of objections, the Act “does not preclude 

further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.” 

Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 

recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court review the magistrate’s findings 

and recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.” 

No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory 

Committee and reviews Judge Papak’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face 

of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Papak’s 

Findings and Recommendation. Dkt. 27. The Trust’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 14) is granted on 

the basis that Plaintiff lacks standing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 23rd day of October, 2015. 

 /s/ Michael H. Simon 

Michael H. Simon 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-01187-PK Document 30 Filed 10/23/15 Page 2 of 2
1 – ORDER 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MARIA LEWIS,

Plaintiff, No. 6:15-cv-00953-SB

v. ORDER

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued a Findings & Recommendation [28] on 

June 29, 2016, recommending that the district judge reverse and remand this case for an award of 

benefits. Defendant has timely filed objections [40] to the Findings & Recommendation. The 

matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

72(b). 

Case 6:15-cv-00593-SB Document 42 Filed 11/02/16 Page 1 of 2
2 – ORDER 

When a party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings & 

Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the 

Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th 

Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

I have carefully considered Defendant’s objections and conclude there is no basis to 

modify the Findings & Recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the 

record de novo and find that Judge Beckerman erred in stating the Plaintiff received personal 

assistance sixty-seven hours per week. In fact, the record indicated that Plaintiff received sixtyseven hours of care per month. Notwithstanding that error, the Court nonetheless adopts the 

conclusions contained within the Findings and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Beckerman’s Findings & Recommendation [28].

The Court ORDERS that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed and remanded for an 

award of benefits pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and this case is DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this _______ day of ____________________, 2016. 

 

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge

Case 6:15-cv-00593-SB Document 42 Filed 11/02/16 Page 2 of 2
_______________________________________ __ 

### Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



## September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


## 136529 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n 

## PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices



## v SC: 136529 COA: 277990 Wayne CC: 06-014173-01 DOMINIC OMARI NORMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 6, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

s0828 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 9, 2008

Clerk
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Timothy M. Doyle, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ITLA CapitalCorporation;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period 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’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of our annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation 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 or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
Date: November 9, 2004
/s/ Timothy M. Doyle
Exhibit 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




Our report on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of Manhattan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 and for the years then ended and on the consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficiency) and cash flows for the period from August 6, 2001 (date of inception) to December 31, 2010, which contains an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern, included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, is dated March 31, 2011. We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report in the following registration statements previously filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933: the registration statements on Forms S-8 with SEC file Nos. 333-148531, 333-15807, 333-112888 and 333-112889.





/s/J.H. Cohn LLP





Roseland, New Jersey


March 31, 2011
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

            SUBSIDIARIES OF EVEREST HEALTHCARE SERVICES CORPORATION



NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                                               JURISDICTION
------------------                                               ------------

Acute Extracorporeal Services, L.L.C.                              Delaware

Con-Med Supply Company, Inc.                                       Illinois

Continental Health Care, Ltd.                                      Illinois

Dialysis Services of Cincinnati, Inc.                              Ohio

Dialysis Specialists of Topeka, Inc.                               Kansas

Dialysis Specialists of Tulsa, Inc.                                Oklahoma

DuPage Dialysis Ltd.                                               Illinois

Everest Healthcare Indiana, Inc.                                   Indiana

Everest Healthcare Ohio, Inc.                                      Ohio

Everest Healthcare Texas Holding Corp.                             Delaware

Everest Healthcare Texas, L.P.                                     Delaware

Everest Management, Inc.                                           Delaware

Everest New York Holdings, Inc.                                    New York

Everest One IPA, Inc.                                              New York

Everest Two IPA, Inc.                                              New York

Everest Three IPA, Inc.                                            New York

Extracorporeal Alliance, L.L.C.                                    Delaware

Home Dialysis of America, Inc.                                     Arizona

Home Dialysis of Eastgate, Inc.                                    Ohio

Home Dialysis of Mt. Auburn, Inc.                                  Ohio

Mercy Dialysis Center, Inc.                                        Wisconsin

New York Dialysis Management, Inc.                                 New York

North Buckner Dialysis Center, Inc.                                Delaware

Northern New Jersey Dialysis, L.L.C.                               Delaware

Perfusion Resource Association, L.L.C.                             Delaware

Saint Margaret Mercy Dialysis Centers, L.L.C.                      Illinois

Terrell Dialysis Center, L.L.C.                                    Delaware

Tri-State Perfusion, L.L.C.                                        Delaware

WSKC Dialysis Services, Inc.                                       Illinois
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1748

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the reduced

capital gains tax rates apply to long-term capital gain from property

with at least a 1-year holding period.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 12, 1998

Mr. MACK (for himself, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. TORRICELLI, Mr. LOTT, Mr.

HATCH, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. KYL, Mr.

ABRAHAM, Mr. ASHCROFT, Mr. COCHRAN, and Mr. HELMS) introduced

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee

on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

that the reduced capital gains tax rates apply to longterm capital gain from property with at least a 1-year

holding period.

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 ‘‘Capital Gains Sim5 plification Act of 1998’’.
2

•S 1748 IS

1 SEC. 2. 1-YEAR HOLDING PERIOD FOR ANY LONG-TERM

2 CAPITAL GAIN.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1(h)(4) of the Internal

4 Revenue Code of 1986 (defining adjusted net capital gain)

5 is amended by adding ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph

6 (B), by striking ‘‘, and’’ at the end of subparagraph (C)

7 and inserting a period, and by striking subparagraph (D).

8 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 1(h) of

9 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended—

10 (1) in paragraph (6), by striking subparagraph

11 (A) and inserting the following:

12 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term

13 ‘unrecaptured section 1250 gain’ means the

14 amount of long-term capital gain which would

15 be treated as ordinary income if section

16 1250(b)(1) included all depreciation and the ap17 plicable percentage under section 1250(a) were

18 100 percent.’’,

19 (2) by striking paragraphs (8), (10), and (11),

20 (3) in paragraph (9), by striking ‘‘section 1202

21 gain, or mid-term gain’’ and inserting ‘‘or section

22 1202 gain’’,

23 (4) by redesignating paragraph (9) as para24 graph (8), and

25 (5) by adding at the end the following:

26 ‘‘(8) TREATMENT OF PASS-THRU ENTITIES.—
3

•S 1748 IS

1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may

2 prescribe such regulations as are appropriate

3 (including regulations requiring reporting) to

4 apply this subsection in the case of sales and

5 exchanges by pass-thru entities and of interests

6 in such entities.

7 ‘‘(B) PASS-THRU ENTITY DEFINED.—For

8 purposes of subparagraph (A), the term ‘pass9 thru entity’ means—

10 ‘‘(i) a regulated investment company,

11 ‘‘(ii) a real estate investment trust,

12 ‘‘(iii) an S corporation,

13 ‘‘(iv) a partnership,

14 ‘‘(v) an estate or trust, and

15 ‘‘(vi) a common trust fund.’’.

16 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

17 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

18 December 31, 1997.

Æ
# EUR-Lex - 52006AP0415 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52006AP0415

**Proposal for a Council decision empowering the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights to pursue its activities in areas referred to in Title VI of the Treaty on European Union (COM(2005)0280 - C6-0289/2005 - 2005/0125(CNS)) **

*
Official Journal 308 E , 16/12/2006 P. 0168 - 0168 *

P6_TA(2006)0415

Fundamental Rights Agency — activities under Title VI TEU *

Proposal for a Council decision empowering the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights to pursue its activities in areas referred to in Title VI of the Treaty on European Union (COM(2005) 0280 — C6-0289/2005 — 2005/0125(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The proposal was amended as follows [1]:

TEXT PROPOSED BY THE COMMISSION | AMENDMENT BY PARLIAMENT |

Amendment 1

Recital 3a (new)

| (3a) The Agency's remit enables it to provide protection for human rights not only in the field of terrorism and organised crime but also in other fields, such as trafficking in persons, offences against children, illicit drug and arms trafficking and corruption and fraud, where measures can also weaken the effectiveness of the protection of human rights. |

[1] The matter was then referred back to committee pursuant to Rule 53(2) (A6-0282/2006).

--------------------------------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF DECORATIVE HOME ACCENTS, INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             657
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,705
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,032
<INVENTORY>                                     42,388
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                76,274
<PP&E>                                          41,505
<DEPRECIATION>                                (11,158)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 127,518
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,980
<BONDS>                                        118,100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           55,678
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                   (139,193)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   127,518
<SALES>                                         40,768
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,768
<CGS>                                           32,700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,224
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,848
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (5,864)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,025)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,025)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,025)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>