alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 10 g**

**SECOND AMENDMENT TO OPERATING AGREEMENT**

**60 EAST 42ND ST. ASSOCIATES L.L.C.**

**SECOND AMENDMENT TO OPERATING AGREEMENT**of 60 East 42nd St. Associates L.L.C. dated as of July 1, 2010 made by Peter L. Malkin, Anthony E. Malkin and Thomas N. Keltner, Jr., as its members. 

**WITNESSETH:**

**WHEREAS**, the parties hereto are all of the members of 60 East 42nd St. Associates L.L.C., a New York limited liability company formed pursuant to an agreement dated September 25, 1958, as amended by agreement dated November 27, 2001 (the “Operating Agreement”), having its principal office c/o Malkin Holdings LLC, One Grand Central Place, 60 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10165;

**WHEREAS**, the parties desire to modify the Operating Agreement as set forth herein;

**NOW, THEREFORE,**the parties agree as follows:

1.  The second sentence of Article 4 of the Operating Agreement is hereby deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“Said firm shall be paid the sum of $180,000 per annum.  Such amount shall be increased annually at the rate of increase in the consumer price index during the prior year, and shall be payable as follows: (i) not less than $2,000 shall be payable each month and (ii) the balance shall be payable out of available reserves from the further additional rent payment by Lincoln Building Associates L.L.C. pursuant to its operating lease of the premises, as such lease may be amended from time to time.  If further additional rent is insufficient to pay the full balance of such fee, any deficiency shall be payable in the next year in which further additional rent is sufficient.  In addition, all disbursements and regular accounting services related to said firm’s maintenance of the books and records of the limited liability company and supervision of the operation of this agreement shall be payable directly by the limited liability company prior to the payment of the balance of the fee to said firm out of further additional rent.”

43227_4.DOC

**  **2

2.

Except as amended by this Second Amendment, the Operating Agreement is hereby ratified and shall remain in full force and effect pursuant to its terms.

/s/ Peter L. Malkin

/s/ Anthony E. Malkin

/s/ Thomas N. Keltner

Peter L. Malkin

Anthony E. Malkin

Thomas N. Keltner, Jr.
Calmer COTTIER v. UNITED STATES

No. 18-9261

Supreme Court of the United States.

Decided December 9, 2019

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Statement of Justice SOTOMAYOR respecting the denial of certiorari.

For his alleged role in a group beating, petitioner Calmer Cottier was charged with, among other things, second-degree murder by an Indian in Indian country. Two other participants accepted plea deals with the Government; as part of their pleas, the participants signed statements-known as factual-basis statements-that implicated Cottier in the murder. A federal prosecutor also signed those inculpatory statements to vouch for their veracity. Then, that same prosecutor offered those same incriminating statements as evidence at Cottier's trial.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit observed that the court in which Cottier was prosecuted "routinely" sends unredacted factual-basis statements into the jury room. 908 F.3d 1141, 1149 (2018). I agree with the Eighth Circuit that this practice is "troubling." *Ibid.* By presenting the jury with a factual-basis statement signed by the Government, the prosecution improperly expresses its " 'personal belief ' " in the truth of the witness' statements-a stamp of approval, an assurance from the Government itself, that the witness is to be believed. *United States v. Young* , 470 U.S. 1, 7-8, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985). In this case, however, Cottier's attorney did not object to the statements' admission and used them as part of Cottier's defense. For that reason and others expressed by the Eighth Circuit in affirming Cottier's convictions, I do not dissent from the denial of certiorari but instead echo its admonition that the admission of such statements "is not a favored practice." 908 F.3d, at 1149.
# C_2018362EN.01000101.xml

| 8.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 362/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 362/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9080 — CEFC/Rockaway Capital/European Bridge Travel (II))

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 362/01)

On 26 September 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9080. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9080. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Anthony Jerome WHITE, aka Dean Braithwaite, aka Carlos Valentine, aka Anthony Brown, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 18-8874

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for rehearing denied.
Desmond Justin MURRAY, Petitioner, v. Mark S. INCH, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 19-5648

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. AURELIUS INVESTMENT, et al.

No. 18-1514

Supreme Court of the United States.

September 11, 2019

Upon consideration of the August 29, 2019 motion for divided argument, a total of 80 minutes is allotted for consolidated oral argument on both questions presented, and the time is divided as follows: 20 minutes to the Financial Oversight and Management Board, 20 minutes to the Solicitor General, 30 minutes to Aurelius Investment, LLC, et al., and 10 minutes to UTIER.
Ann KARNOFEL, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR WATERPROOFING, INC.

No. 19-7166.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 20, 2020

Petition for rehearing denied.
Floyd Hamilton BRYNS, Jr., Petitioner v. MARYLAND

No. 19-374

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 21, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland denied.
UNDER SEAL 

EXHIBIT 8

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 106-8 Filed 11/22/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:

5679
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 30 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 30

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
   limit the number of years Representatives and Senators may serve.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 14, 2013

 Mr. Price of Georgia introduced the following joint resolution; which 
             was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
   limit the number of years Representatives and Senators may serve.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. No person shall be a Representative for more than 
eighteen years, except that service to fill a vacancy shall not be 
included in determining eligibility.
    ``Section 2. No person shall be a Senator for more than eighteen 
years, except that service to fill a vacancy shall not be included in 
determining eligibility.
    ``Section 3. Only service that begins after the date of 
ratification of this article shall count in determining the number of 
years a Representative or Senator serves.''.
                                 <all>
```
J.A. M., Petitioner v. NEW JERSEY

No. 19-5471

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division denied.
# C_2018210EN.01000102.xml

| 18.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 210/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 210/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8903 — BHAP/Gestamp China/Manufacturing JV/Sales JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 210/02)

On 12 June 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8903. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8903. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
IA 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 13 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States waiving 

the application of the first article of amendment to the political speech 

of corporations and other business organizations with respect to the 

disbursement of funds in connection with public elections. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2013 

Ms. KAPTUR introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States waiving the application of the first article of 

amendment to the political speech of corporations and 

other business organizations with respect to the disbursement of funds in connection with public elections. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•HJ 13 IH 

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

2 for ratification: 

3 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

4 ‘‘The first article of amendment does not apply to the 

5 political speech of any corporation, partnership, business 

6 trust, association, or other business organization with re7 spect to the making of contributions, expenditures, or 

8 other disbursements of funds in connection with public 

9 elections.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with
Order filed July 3 , 2012

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 12

- 00248

- CV

____________ EDWARD PAUL CELESTIN E , Appellant

V.

COURTYARD O F THREE FOUNTAINS AS SOCIATION AND KRJ

MANAGEMENT, INC., Appellees

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1006812



### O R D E R
This appeal is from an order signed February 28, 2012. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on March 23 , 2012. On May 3, 2012, the trial court denied the contest to appellant’s pauper’s affidavit and determined that appellant may proceed on appeal without payment of costs.
Accordingly, appellant is deemed indigent and is entitled to proceed without payment of costs. This court’s order dated June 12 , 2012 order ing appellant to pay the appellate filing fee is withdrawn.PER CURIAM
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 99 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 232
113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 99

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 31, 2013

Received; read twice and placed on the calendar, pursuant to Sec. 1002 
                          of Public Law 113-46

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Relating to the disapproval of the President's exercise of authority to 
   suspend the debt limit, as submitted under section 1002(b) of the 
        Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014 on October 17, 2013.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves of 
the President's exercise of authority to suspend the debt limit, as 
exercised pursuant to the certification under section 1002(b) of the 
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 30, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.

                                                       Calendar No. 232

113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             H. J. RES. 99

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

Relating to the disapproval of the President's exercise of authority to 
   suspend the debt limit, as submitted under section 1002(b) of the 
        Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014 on October 17, 2013.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            October 31, 2013

Received; read twice and placed on the calendar, pursuant to Sec. 1002 
                          of Public Law 113-46
```
# C_2018255EN.01000101.xml

| 20.7.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8954 — BPEA/PAI/WFC)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 255/01)

On 26 June 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8954. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8954. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2018355EN.01000801.xml

| 4.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/8

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.8955 — Takeda/Shire)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 355/05)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited (‘Takeda’, Japan), and |
| --- | --- |

—

Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited (‘Takeda’, Japan), and

| — | Shire plc (‘Shire’, Jersey). |
| --- | --- |

—

Shire plc (‘Shire’, Jersey).

Takeda acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Shire.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | Takeda is a global pharmaceutical company with a particular focus on oncology, gastroenterology, neuroscience and vaccines. |
| --- | --- |

—

Takeda is a global pharmaceutical company with a particular focus on oncology, gastroenterology, neuroscience and vaccines.

| — | Shire is a global biopharmaceutical company and specialises in the treatment of rare diseases across therapeutic areas. |
| --- | --- |

—

Shire is a global biopharmaceutical company and specialises in the treatment of rare diseases across therapeutic areas.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.8955 — Takeda/Shire

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

| E-mail: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu |
| --- |
| Fax +32 22964301 |
| Postal address: |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

E-mail: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

---
Nadia KUZMENKO, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7368.

Supreme Court of the United States.

June 1, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Steve Kelly MOYER, Petitioner v. KANSAS.

No. 18-1571

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Kansas denied.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JOSE ANTHONY HERNANDEZ,

Appellant,

v.

REBECCA L. HEIKKA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-2820

[October 1, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Carlos A. Rodriguez, Judge; L.T. Case No. 07-8440 CACE 

(14).

Frances Guasch de la Guardia and Suzanne Aldahan of Holland & 

Knight LLP, Miami, for appellant.

Kenneth D. Cooper, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.

Verena Margreiter, Salzburg, Austria, respondent pro se.

Motion by respondent for an order reinstating her to the practice of law following her suspension by May 2019 order of this Court (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, 172 AD3d 1706 [2019]; see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16; Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16).

Upon reading respondent's notice of motion and affidavit with exhibits sworn to November 5, 2019, and the responsive correspondence from the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department dated December 23, 2019, and having determined, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) respondent has complied with the order of suspension and the Rules of this Court, (2) respondent has the requisite character and fitness to practice law, and (3) it would be in the public interest to reinstate respondent to the practice of law (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Stonner], 175 AD3d 799 [2019]; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Dorsett], 174 AD3d 1219 [2019]), it is

ORDERED that respondent's motion for reinstatement is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law, effectively immediately.

Garry, P.J., Lynch, Mulvey, Aarons and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ., concur.
Jonas YBARRA, Jr., Petitioner, v. TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION, et al.

No. 19-1169.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 27, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
NO. 07-06-0178-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

MAY 2, 2006

______________________________

GABRIEL G. TRUJILLO,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURT, PRECINCT 3 OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 54563; HON. HAVEN DYSART, PRESIDING

_______________________________

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and HANCOCK, JJ.

Appellant, Gabriel G. Trujillo, appeals from a final judgment entered in the justice of

the peace court. However, appeals from a justice court shall be heard by a county court,

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 45.042(a) (Vernon Supp. Pamph. 2005), or a statutory

county court in the respective county, TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §25.003(a) (Vernon 2004).

Consequently, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.