alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.2.24

            SCHEDULE OF MATERIAL DIFFERENCES AMONG PERCENTAGE LEASES

                  The following lists of material differences between the
Percentage Lease filed as Exhibit 10.2 and the Percentage Lease identified by
the Exhibit number below and is being filed pursuant to Instruction 2 to Item
601 of Regulation S-K.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Exhibit                                                          Annual Base             Percentage Rent
Number          Percentage Lease Description                        Rent                     Formula
------          -----------------------------------              -----------          ----------------------
<S>             <C>                                              <C>                  <C>
10.2.24         Lease Agreement dated as of December             $1,090,200           32% of room revenue
                19, 1997 by and between Sunstone                                      up to $283,906, plus
                Hotel Investors, L.P. as lessor and                                   61% of room revenue
                Sunstone Hotel Properties, Inc.,                                      in excess of $283,906
                as lessee, for the Radisson Suite Hotel                               plus 5% of food and
                located in Oxnard, California.                                        beverage revenue, plus
                                                                                      100% of sublease and
                                                                                      concession revenue and
                                                                                      other net revenues.
</TABLE>
STATE v. PORTIS.

No. COA06-709.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 6, 2007.

Certification Date February 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Cumberland (04CRS69839).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
CB&H BUSINESS SERVICES, L.L.C. v. J.T. COMER CONSULTING, INC. and CBH Pensions, Inc.

No. 365A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 7, 2007.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C.App. ___, 646 S.E.2d 843 (2007), reversing in part an order entered on 28 July 2006 by Judge Robert P. Johnston in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County granting summary judgment in favor of defendants, and remanding for entry of judgment in plaintiff's favor. Heard in the Supreme Court 15 November 2007.

Hamilton Moon Stephens Steele & Martin, P.L.L.C., by T. Jonathan Adams, Charlotte, for plaintiff-appellee.

Arthurs & Foltz, by Douglas P. Arthurs, Gastonia, for defendant-appellants.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE> 11

Exhibit 10(a)-1

           Amendment to 1993 Stock Option Plan 

     Article 4 of the Stock Option Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:

     "4. Stock Reserved for Plan. Subject to adjustment as provided in 
paragraph 6 hereof, a total of 800,000 shares of the common stock, $.0001
par value, of the Company ("Stock") shall be subject to the Plan. The shares
subject to the Plan shall consist of unissued shares, and such number of 
shares shall be, and hereby is, reserved for sale for such purpose. Any of
such shares which may remain unsold and which are not subject to outstanding
Options at the termination of the Plan shall cease to be reserved for the
Plan, but until termination of the Plan the Company shall at all times 
reserve a sufficient number of shares to meet the requirements of the Plan. 
Should any Option for any reason expire or be canceled prior to its exercise 
or relinquishment in full, the shares theretofore subject to such Option may
again be subject to an Option under the Plan".
STATE v. MOSS

No. COA07-607

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 19, 2008.

Certification Date March 10, 2008.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (05CRS219920, 05CRS219922).

Decision without published opinion. No error in part; Vacated and remanded in part.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Crown Pacific Partners, L.P. (the“Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Steven E. Dietrich, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of thePartnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Partnership.

 
| /s/ Steven E. Dietrich       |   |
|------------------------------|--------|
| Steven E. Dietrich           |   |
| Senior Vice President and    |   |
| Chief Financial Officer      |   |
| Crown Pacific Partners, L.P. |   |
| August 14, 2003              |   |

 

 

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section1350, and not for any other purpose.  Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Crown Pacific Partners, L.P. and will be retained by Crown PacificPartners, L.P. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

 

----
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 520/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 520/2013 of 6 June 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 520/2013                     

# of 6 June 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 6 June 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
<PAGE>

                             CORRECTION OF MORTGAGE



Prepared by and
after recordation
return to:

Brian M. Schafer, Esq.
Winston & Strawn
35 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60601


                  WHEREAS, The Bank of New York, as Trustee ("MORTGAGEE"), and
Archibald Candy Corporation, an Illinois corporation ("MORTGAGOR"), are parties
to that certain Mortgage, Security Agreement, Assignment of Leases and Rents,
Fixture Filing and Financing Statement by Mortgagor in favor of Mortgagee, dated
July 2, 1997, as supplemented (the "MORTGAGE"), which Mortgage encumbers the
real property legally described on Schedules A and A-1 attached hereto and made
a part hereof;

                  WHEREAS, Schedules A and A-1 to the Mortgage incorrectly
include PIN Numbers 17-17-223-018-0000, 17-17-223-019-0000 and
17-17-223-020-0000 (the "INCORRECT PIN NUMBERS");

                  WHEREAS, the other PIN Numbers listed in Schedules A and A-1
completely and correctly identify the five parcels identified in Schedule A by
legal description and street address; and

                  WHEREAS, Mortgagor has requested that Mortgagee execute this
Correction of Mortgage to correct Schedules A and A-1 by deleting the references
to the Incorrect PIN Numbers;

                  NOW THEREFORE, Mortgagee hereby agrees that Schedules A and
A-1 are hereby amended by deleting therefrom the references to the Incorrect PIN
Numbers.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Mortgagee has caused this instrument to
be duly executed as of the 19th day of July, 2000.



                                       THE BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee

CORPORATE SEAL                         By:      /s/ Mary LaGumina
                                             -----------------------------------
                                       Name:       Mary LaGumina
                                       Title:      Vice President



<PAGE>

STATE OF NEW YORK )
                  ) SS.
COUNTY OF BRONX   )


                  I, William Cassels, a Notary Public in and for said County, in
the State aforesaid, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that Mary LaGumina, personally known to
me to be the Vice President of THE BANK OF NEW YORK, appeared before me this day
in person and acknowledged that he/she signed and delivered said instrument as
Vice President of said bank, as his/her free and voluntary act for the uses and
purposes therein set forth.

                  GIVEN under my hand and notarial seal this 19th day of July,
2000.


                                       William Cassels
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       Notary Public

                                       My Commission Expires:  May 16, 2002
# The Agriculture (Cross compliance) (No. 2) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 (revoked)

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

Statutory Instruments

# 2013 No. 3231

Agriculture, England

# The Agriculture (Cross compliance) (No. 2) (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Made

18th December 2013

Laid before Parliament

20th December 2013

Coming into force

1st January 2014

The Secretary of State is a Minister designated for the purposes of section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972(1) in relation to the common agricultural policy of the European Union(2) and makes these Regulations under the powers conferred by section 2(2) of that Act.                        

## Citation and commencementU.K.

1.  These Regulations may be cited as the Agriculture (Cross compliance) (No. 2) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 and come into force                     on 1st January 2014.                  

## Amendment of the Agriculture (Cross compliance) (No. 2) Regulations 2009U.K.

2.—(1) The Agriculture (Cross compliance) (No. 2) Regulations 2009(3) are amended in accordance with paragraph (2).                  

(2) In Schedule 1 (standards of good agricultural and environmental condition), in the table in paragraph 1 (specified provisions),                     after the entry relating to the Nitrate Pollution Prevention Regulations 2008(4), insert—                  

George Eustice

Parliamentary Under Secretary of State

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

18th December 2013

## EXPLANATORY NOTE

(This note is not part of the Regulations)

These Regulations amend the Agriculture (Cross compliance) (No. 2) Regulations 2009 (S.I. 2009/3365). They add provisions under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/675) (failures to comply with requirements relating to groundwater activities) to the list of provisions which constitute failures                     of cross compliance by claimants of subsidy under the single payment scheme.                  

An impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no impact on the private or voluntary sector, and no significant                     impact on the public sector, is foreseen.                  

1

1972 c. 68. Section 2(2) was amended by section 27(1)(a) of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 (c. 51) and Part 1 of the Schedule to the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 (c. 7).                           

2

S.I. 1972/1811.                           

3

S.I. 2009/3365, amended by S.I. 2010/2941; there are other amending instruments but neither is relevant.                           

4

S.I. 2008/2349.                           

5

S.I. 2010/675, amended by S.I. 2012/630; there are other amending instruments but none is relevant.
EXHIBIT 32.01***CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER***     I, Bruce Cleland, the Chief Executive Officer of Campbell & Company, Inc. as managingoperator, of The Campbell Fund Trust, certify that (i) the Form 10K for the year ended December 31,2006 of The Campbell Fund Trust fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10K for the yearended December 31, 2006 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of The Campbell Fund Trust.         THE CAMPBELL FUND TRUST    By: Campbell & Company, Inc., managing operator           By: /s/ Bruce L. Cleland             Bruce L. Cleland      Chief Executive Officer      March 30, 2007  
 E 4
# C_2023035EN.01007001.xml

| 30.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/70

---

Action brought on 15 November 2022 — Bourbon Offshore Interoil Shipping v Commission

(Case T-721/22)

(2023/C 35/91)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Bourbon Offshore Interoil Shipping — Navegação, Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: S. Fernandes Martins and M. Mendonça Saraiva, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III;

| — | in any event, without prejudice to the previous head of claim, annul Article 4 of Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) and, consequently, the order to recover the aid from the beneficiaries, together with interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, without prejudice to the previous head of claim, annul Article 4 of Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) and, consequently, the order to recover the aid from the beneficiaries, together with interest;

| — | annul the contested decision in accordance with Article 264 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in accordance with Article 264 TFEU;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging that the methodology proposed by the European Commission of defining the concept of ‘job creation’ in FTEs (Full-Time Equivalents) and ALUs (Annual Labour Units), as used in the Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013 (OJ 2006 C 54, p. 13), is inapplicable.

Second plea in law, alleging the inadmissibility of the order to recover the aid from the beneficiaries and to pay interest.

---
# C_2023024EN.01005302.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/53

---

Action brought on 12 November 2022 — Fratelli Cosulich v Commission

(Case T-696/22)

(2023/C 24/73)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Fratelli Cosulich, Unipessoal, SA (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: S. Gemas Donário and S. Soares, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law that are, essentially, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-553/22, Thorn Investments v Commission.

---
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-15-0000340

20-AUG-2015

08:11 AM
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 344/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 344/2014 of 3 April 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 344/2014                     

# of 3 April 2014

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 3 April 2014.

*For the Commission*,                           

*On behalf of the President*,                           

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
Walter James FUCITO v. Francine Maria FRANCIS.

No. 381P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2008.

Nick Galifianakis, Durham, David Krall, for Francis.

Lucy R. McCarl, Lenoir, for Fucito.

*441*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th day of August 2007 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of March 2008."
STATE v. CULBERTSON

No. COA06-479

Court of Appeal of North Carolina

Filed January 2, 2007

Certification Date January 22, 2007

Appeal from Union (99CRS12170, 99CRS12171, 00CRS51429).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Vacated in part; no error in part.
BIO-MEDICAL v. NCDHHS.

No. 549A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 8, 2007.

Lee M. Whitman, Raleigh, Sarah M. Johnson, Winston-Salem, for Bio-Medical Applications.

Thomas R. West, Pamela A. Scott, William R. Shenton, Raleigh, Chad W. Essick, for Total Renal Care.

S. Todd Hemphill, Diana E. Ricketts, Raleigh, for Health Systems Management.

Susan K. Hackney, Amy Gray, Assistant Attorney Generals, for NCDHHS.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th day of February 2007 by Plaintiff for Leave to File Surreply to Appellees' Joint Reply to Plaintiff Appellant's Response to Motions to:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 8th day of March 2007."