alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Second Amendment to Contract, dated July 14,2004


 Exhibit 10.4 
  
 Reference is made to the Agreement (the “Agreement”) made as of the
         day of July, 2004 between Tommy Hilfiger 485 Fifth, Inc. (“Seller”) and Park & 5th Property, LLC (“Purchaser”) with respect to the purchase of premises located at 485 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York (the “Premises”). 
  
 The following shall serve to amend and supplement the Agreement: 

 
 1. The Agreement shall be deemed dated the 14th day of July, 2004. 
  
 2. Pursuant to Section 5(c) of the Agreement, Purchaser is to designate within ten (10) days of the end of the Due Diligence Period which service
contracts that it has not elected to have Seller terminate prior to closing. Certain of the service contracts have not yet been delivered to Purchaser and it may be that Seller may enter into other service contracts between the date hereof and the
date of closing. Accordingly, it is agreed that Purchaser will have ten (10) days after receipt of any such service contract to make its election to have Seller terminate the same. 
  
 3. The attached shall be deemed added to the agreement as Exhibit 7. 
  
 4. Seller agrees to process all applications as may be reasonably required in
order to implement the obtaining of a C of O for the Premises, and to fully cooperate with the Purchaser in connection therewith. The costs for third party consultants, expediters and the like retained by Purchaser shall be Purchaser’s.

  
 5. Seller reaffirms its obligations as set forth in the
Agreement to remove violations and has been made aware of the attached violations which it shall take all appropriate action at its expense to remove. 
  
 6. Seller will promptly take action to complete all reports and filings required by Local Law 10 and 11, and to obtain “signoffs” or such
approvals as may be required to be in compliance with applicable law, and to register the boilers at the premises in accordance with all requirements of applicable laws, rules and regulations. 
  
 7. Purchaser shall receive a credit of $250,000.00 against the Purchase Price
due to certain matters relating to the condition of the Premises. 
  
 8. Seller will use reasonable efforts to effect a transfer to Purchaser of the roof and elevator warranties. 
  
 9. Seller will correct electrical panels and switches as per attached report. 
  

									
	 Dated: August 5, 2004
	 	 	 	TOMMY HILFIGER 485 FIFTH, INC.
					
	 	 	 	 	 	 	By:	 	 /s/ Steven R. Gursky

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Steven R. Gursky, Secretary

			
	 Dated: August 5, 2004
	 	 	 	PARK & 5TH PROPERTY, LLC
					
	 	 	 	 	 	 	By:	 	 /s/ Hymie Mamiye

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Name:
	 	 Hymie Mamiye

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Title:
	 	 Manager
Case 1:07-cv-05358-AKH Document 17 Filed 10/10/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05358-AKH Document 17 Filed 10/10/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05358-AKH Document 17 Filed 10/10/2007 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE REGISTRANT AS OF MARCH 31,
1998 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS OF THE REGISTRANT FOR THE
THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           5,157
<SECURITIES>                                   763,195
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,738
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   804
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 778,894
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          687,919
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            67
<OTHER-SE>                                      90,908
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   778,894
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,907
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   332
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,011
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    564
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                564
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       564
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09
        

</TABLE>
A92A1035.

#### VANCE v. THE STATE.

(421 SE2d 730)

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Defendant was indicted for violating the Georgia Controlled Substances Act (possession of cocaine). The evidence adduced at a motion to suppress hearing revealed the following: At about 11:30 p.m. on March 27, 1990, Officer Anthony Volkadav and two other officers of the Atlanta Police Department were on routine patrol in a “housing projects area” when they observed defendant “standing by one of the buildings.” Officer Volkadav pulled over and “motioned to [defendant] to come to the patrol car.” Defendant withdrew his hands from his pockets and placed his right hand behind his leg. Officer Volkadav then observed defendant “drop an object” from his right hand and walk toward the patrol car. Officer Volkadav detained defendant at the police car while the other two officers investigated the area where defendant dropped the object. The officers found “one small glassine envelope which contained suspected crack cocaine. . . .” Defendant was arrested.

The trial court denied defendant’s motion for new trial. This appeal followed defendant’s conviction for possession of cocaine. *Held:*

Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress, arguing he was stopped and detained by law enforcement officers without articulable suspicion that he had committed or was about to commit a crime.

“It has been said that United States ‘ “Supreme Court holdings sculpt out, at least theoretically, three tiers of police-citizen en*202counters: (1) communication between police and citizens involving no coercion or detention and therefore without the compass of the Fourth Amendment, (2) brief ‘seizures’ that must be supported by reasonable suspicion, and (3) full-scale arrests that must be supported by probable cause. (Cits.)” ’ *McAdoo v. State,*164 Ga. App. 23, 26 (295 SE2d 114).” *Alexander v. State,*166 Ga. App. 233 (2), 234 (303 SE2d 773).

Decided July 2, 1992

Reconsideration denied July 27, 1992

*Corinne M. Mull-Milsteen,*for appellant.

*Robert E. Wilson, District Attorney, Elisabeth MacNamara, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

In the case sub judice, defendant contends he was unlawfully detained when Officer Volkadav waved him to the patrol car, arguing that refusal to comply with the officer’s demand may have led to police oppression and brutality. This contention is without merit. Defendant had no previous contact with police officers on the night of his arrest and Officer Volkadav’s gesture for defendant to come to the patrol car was not accompanied by threats or coercion. In fact, defendant gave direct testimony that it was his choice to approach the officers.

Defendant was not detained until after Officer Volkadav observed defendant remove his hands from his pants’ pockets and drop an object behind his right leg. This evidence justified defendant’s brief detention while the officers investigated the area where defendant dropped the object. The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Sognier, C. J., and Cooper, J., concur.*
# Index of Worksheets

# Fires & Losses Trends 2008-2017

# Fires by Gen Property Type 2017

# Res Bldg Fire & Loss '08-'17

# Nonres Bldg Fire & Loss '08-'17

# Vehicle Fire & Loss '08-'17

# Out-Other Fire & Loss '08-'17

# Res Bldg Fire Causes 2017

# Nonres Bldg Fire Causes 2017

# Vehicle Fire Causes 2017

# Outside Fire Causes 2017

# Other Fire Causes 2017
#### Jeffrey Russo, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Elaine Russo, Respondent, v Grace Institute, Defendant, and Kalikow Construction Corp., Appellant and Third-Party Plaintiff, et al., Third-Party Defendant. Jeffrey Russo, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Elaine Russo, Plaintiff, v Edward Z. Holmes Detective Bureau, Defendant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Greenfield, J.), entered on or about February 9, 1989, unanimously affirmed for reasons stated by Edward Greenfield, J. *(Russo v Grace Inst.,*145 Misc 2d 242.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.
Abatement Order filed October 4, 2011. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-11-00782-CV

____________

BALLARD EXPLORATION COMPANY, INC., Appellant

V.

MRA NORTHEAST, L.P. AND FRM/MRA HOLDINGS #1, LTD, Appellees

On Appeal from the 333rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2009-21836

ABATEMENT ORDER

We have determined that this case is appropriate for referral to mediation, an 

alternative dispute resolution process. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code '' 154.021—

.073. Mediation is a forum in which an impartial person, the mediator, facilitates 

communication between parties to promote reconciliation or settlement. Id. ' 154.023(a). 

Any communication relating to the subject matter of the appeal made by a participant in 

the mediation proceeding is confidential. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ' 154.053. 

After mediation, the parties shall advise the court whether the case settled, or whether any 

further negotiation efforts are planned. 
2

The court ORDERS the appeal ABATED for a period of sixty days and refers the 

underlying dispute to mediation. Any party may file a written objection to this order with 

the clerk of this court within 10 days of the date of this order. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & 

Rem. Code ' 154.022. If this court finds that there is a reasonable basis for the objection, 

the objection shall be sustained and the appeal reinstated on this court’s active docket. 

See id.

The court ORDERS that the mediation be held within 60 days of the date of this 

order. The court ORDERS that all parties or their representatives with full settlement 

authority shall attend the mediation process, with their counsel of record. The court 

FURTHER ORDERS that within 48 hours of completion of the mediation, the parties 

shall advise the court in writing whether the case settled.

If mediation fully resolves the issues in the case, the court ORDERS the parties to 

file a motion to dismiss the appeal, other dispositive motion, or a motion for additional 

time to file the dispositive motion, within 10 days of the conclusion of the mediation. 

The court ORDERS the appellate timetable in this case suspended for 60 days

from the date of this order.

The appeal is ABATED, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court=s 

active docket for a period of sixty days. The appeal will be reinstated on this court=s 

active docket after sixty days. Any party may file a motion stating grounds for 

reinstating the appeal before the end of the sixty-day period. Any party may also file a 

motion to dismiss the appeal or other dispositive motion at any time. Any party may file 

a motion to extend the abatement period for completion of mediation or to finalize a 

settlement. 

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 32

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

By signing below, each of the undersigned  officers hereby certifies pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to his or her knowledge,  (i) this report fully complies with the
requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) the  information  contained  in this  report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of Union
Community Bancorp.

Signed this 14th day of May 2004.




/s/ J. Lee Walden                                  /s/ Alan L. Grimble
------------------------------                     -----------------------------
J. Lee Walden                                      Alan L. Grimble
Chief Financial Officer                            Chief Executive Officer

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Union  Community  Bancorp and will
be retained by Union  Community  Bancorp and  furnished  to the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
DOCSNY-271751v01 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 

: 

: 

: 

: 

21 MC 102 (AKH) 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

EUGENIUSZ SKRZECZKOWSKI (AND WIFE, 

ALICJA SKRZECZKOWSKI),

 Plaintiff, 

 - against - 

90 CHURCH STREET LIMITED 

PARTNERSHIP, et al., 

 Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

07-CV-4517-AKH 

APPEARANCE 

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

To the Clerk of this Court and all parties of record: 

Enter my appearance as counsel in this case for: 

MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. 

I certify that I am admitted to practice in this court.

Dated: New York, New York 

 October 3, 2007 

 By:

DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 

 /s/ Judith R. Cohen___ 

Judith R. Cohen (JC-8614) 

1177 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, New York 10036 

Phone: (212) 277-6500 

Fax: (212) 277-6501 

Attorney for Defendant 

MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. 

Case 1:07-cv-04517-AKH Document 15 Filed 10/03/2007 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.18

       EXTENSION AGREEMENT TO CONTINUE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
          BETWEEN R. PHILLIP LANEY ("EXECUTIVE") AND
     POGO PRODUCING COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION ("COMPANY"),
             DATED EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 1, 2001


         WHEREAS, Executive and Company are parties to an "Employment
Agreement" bearing an original "Effective Date" of February 1, 1996; and

         WHEREAS, February 1, 2001, (even date herewith) is hereby
deemed to be the "Renewal Date" in that Employment Agreement; and

         WHEREAS, Executive and Company each wish to extend said
Employment Agreement for an additional one-year period so as to terminate
(unless further extended) two years thereafter, (to-wit January 31, 2003); and

         WHEREAS, Company desires to retain the services of Executive
for the benefit of Company and its shareholders, and desires to induce Executive
to remain in its employ for that extended time period; and

         WHEREAS, Executive has agreed to continue to serve as an
employee of Company for the period specified herein from and after the date of
this Extension Agreement; and

         WHEREAS, Company and Executive desire to enter into this
Extension Agreement in order to formally secure for Company the benefit of the
experience and abilities of Executive, and to set forth the agreements and
understandings of Company and Executive; and

         WHEREAS, Company has advised Executive that execution and
performance of this Extension Agreement by Company has been duly authorized and
approved by all requisite corporate action on the part of the Company.
<PAGE>

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the
mutual promises and agreements herein contained, and in consideration of the sum
of $10 paid by Company to Executive, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged by
Executive, Executive and Company do hereby agree as follows:

         1. The Employment Agreement between Executive and Company
bearing an "Effective Date" of February 1, 1996 and a "Renewal Date" which is
deemed herein to be February 1, 2001, is hereby extended for an additional
one-year period commencing February 1, 2002 and ending January 31, 2003, unless
such employment period is hereafter further extended for an additional period by
both Executive and Company.

         2. All provisions of the Employment Agreement between
Executive and Company dated as of February 1, 1996, and as it is herein amended,
are continued in full force and effect without change as if the Employment
Agreement had been initially effective as of February 1, 2001.

                      POGO PRODUCING COMPANY



                      By: /s/ JOHN O. McCOY, JR.
                          ----------------------
                          Senior Vice President and
                          Chief Administrative Officer


ATTEST:

/s/ JOE ANN KINGDON
-----------------------------
Assistant Corporate Secretary

                      EMPLOYEE:


                      /s/ R. PHILLIP LANEY
                      -----------------------
                      R. Phillip Laney
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER 21 MC 102 (AKH)

LOWER MANHATTAN DISASTER

SITE LITIGATION

CLEMENTE URENA (and wife, BELKIS URENA), 07-CV-1540 (AKH)

Plaintiffs, NOTICE OF ADOPTION BY

BLUE MILLENNIUM

-against- REALTY LLC OF ANSWER

TO MASTER COMPLAINT

80 LAFAYETTE ASSOCIATES LLC, ET AL.,

Defendants.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendant BLUE MILLENNIUM REALTY LLC

(hereinafter Blue Millennium), as and for its response to the allegations set forth in the

Complaint by Adoption (Check-Off Complaint) related to the Master Complaint filed in the

above-referenced action, herein adopt Blue Millenniums Answer to Master Complaint, dated

August 1, 2007, which was filed in the matter of In re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan

Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH).

WHEREFORE, Blue Millennium demands judgment dismissing the above-captioned

action as against it, together with its costs and disbursements.

Dated: New York, New York

September 11, 2007

HARRIS BEACH PLLC

Attorneysfor Defendant

BLUE MILLENNIUM REALTY LLC

Is!

Stanley Goos, Esq. (SG 7062)

100 Wall Street, 23rd Floor

New York, New York 10005

(212) 687-0100

Case 1:07-cv-01540-AKH Document 10 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 1 of 3
TO:

Paul Napoli, Esq.

Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern LLP

115 Broadway, 12th Floor

New York, New York 10006

Robert A. Grochow, Esq.

Robert A. Grochow, P.C.

233 Broadway, 5th Floor

New York, New York 10279

Gregory J. Cannata, Esq.

Law Offices of Gregory J. Cannata

233 Broadway, 5th Floor

New York, New York 10279

Liaison Counselfor Plaintiffs

James E. Tyrrell, Esq.

Joseph Hopkins, Esq.

Patton Boggs LLP

One Riverfront Plaza, 6th Floor

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Thomas Egan, Esq.

Flemming Zulack Williamson Zauderer LLP

One Liberty Plaza

New York, New York 10006

Liaison Counselfor the Defendants

All Other Defense Counsel

-J

Case 1:07-cv-01540-AKH Document 10 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 2 of 3
4

CERTIFICATION AS TO SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on September 11, 2007, I caused the following

document to be electronically via the Courts ECF system:

1. Notice of Blue Millenniums Adoption of Answer to Master Complaint.

The undersigned further certifies that on September 11, 2007, I caused the aforesaid

documents to be served via First Class Mail upon the following:

Paul Napoli, Esq. James E. Tyrrell, Esq.

Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern LLP Joseph Hopkins, Esq.

115 Broadway, 12th Floor Patton Boggs LLP

New York, New York 10006 One Riverfront Plaza, 6th Floor

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Robert A. Grochow, Esq.

Robert A. Grochow, P.C. Thomas Egan, Esq.

233 Broadway, ~ Floor Flemming Zulack Williamson Zauderer LLP

New York, New York 10279 One Liberty Plaza

New York, New York 10006

Gregory J. Cannata, Esq.

Law Offices of Gregory J. Cannata Liaison Counselfor the Defendants

233 Broadway, 5th Floor

New York, New York 10279

Liaison Counselfor Plaintjffs

Dated: September 11, 2007

Is

Stanley Goos, Esq. (SG 7062)

Case 1:07-cv-01540-AKH Document 10 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 3 of 3
111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 86 

AN ACT 

To eliminate an unused lighthouse reservation, provide management consistency by incorporating the rocks and small 

islands along the coast of Orange County, California, 

into the California Coastal National Monument managed 

by the Bureau of Land Management, and meet the original Congressional intent of preserving Orange County’s 

rocks and small islands, and for other purposes. 
2 

•HR 86 EH

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

3 SECTION 1. PRESERVATION OF ROCKS AND SMALL IS4 LANDS ALONG THE COAST OF ORANGE COUN5 TY, CALIFORNIA. 

6 (a) CALIFORNIA COASTAL NATIONAL MONUMENT.— 

7 The Act of February 18, 1931, entitled ‘‘An Act to reserve 

8 for public use rocks, pinnacles, reefs, and small islands 

9 along the seacoast of Orange County, California’’ is 

10 amended by striking ‘‘temporarily reserved’’ and all that 

11 follows through ‘‘United States’’ and inserting ‘‘part of 

12 the California Coastal National Monument and shall be 

13 administered as such’’. 

14 (b) REPEAL OF RESERVATION.—Section 31 of the 

15 Act of May 28, 1935, entitled ‘‘An Act to authorize the 

16 Secretary of Commerce to dispose of certain lighthouse 

17 reservations, and for other purposes’’ is hereby repealed. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 9, 

2009. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 86 

AN ACT 

To eliminate an unused lighthouse reservation, proposes. ty’s rocks and small islands, and for other pur- Congressional intent of preserving Orange Coun- reau of Land Management, and meet the original Coastal National Monument managed by the Bu- Orange County, California, into the California the rocks and small islands along the coast of vide management consistency by incorporating
Exhibit 15.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMS

We hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference in the Registration Statements on Form F-3 (No. 333-177645) and Form S-8 (No. 333-185299-01) of Unilever N.V. and on Form F-3 (No. 333-177645-02) and Form S-8 (No. 333-185299) of Unilever PLC of our
report dated 5 March, 2013 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting which appears in this Form 20-F.



|                              
|------------------------------
|/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
|PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP    
|London, United Kingdom        
|As auditors of Unilever PLC   
|8 March, 2013                 

Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 8 March, 2013

PricewaterhouseCoopers Accountants N.V.

As auditors of Unilever N.V.



|                  
|------------------
|/s/ R A J Swaak RA
|R A J Swaak RA