alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PM-EX10.27_12.31.12-Q4




EXHIBIT 10.27


AMENDMENT NO.2 TO TIME SHARING AGREEMENT


THIS AMENDMENT NO.2 TO TIME SHARING AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into this 23rd day of October, 2012, by and between PMI Global Services Inc.,  
with an address of 180 Airport Rd, Hgr D2, White Plains, NY 10604 (“Operator”) and Louis C. Camilleri, with an address of 120 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10017 (“User”).


WITNESSETH, that


WHEREAS, Operator and User are parties to that certain Time Sharing Agreement dated August 18, 2010, as amended (“Agreement”); 


WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement; and


WHEREAS, Wells Fargo acknowledges and consents to this Amendment.


NOW THEREFORE, Operator and User declaring their intention to enter into and be bound by this Amendment, and for the good and valuable consideration set forth below, hereby covenant and agree as follows:


1.    Capitalized Terms.  All capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement.


2.    Amendment.  


Exhibit A to the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the Exhibit A attached hereto.


3.    This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, without regard to its choice of law provisions.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused the signatures of their authorized representatives to be affixed below on the day and year first above written.   The persons signing below warrant their authority to sign.


Operator:                         User:    


PMI GLOBAL SERVICES INC.                
            
By:    /s/     JAMES R. WEST                /s/ LOUIS C. CAMILLERI        
Name:    James R. West                    Name:     Louis C. Camilleri__________
Title:    Vice President            





1






ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:


Wells Fargo Bank Northwest, National Association, not in its individual capacity, but solely as Owner Trustee under that certain Amended and Restated Trust Agreement dated as of June 1, 2012, as amended and supplemented from time to time.




By:    /s/     MICHAEL ARSENAULT    
Name:    Michael Arsenault        
Title:    Vice President        







2








EXHIBIT A    






	
			
	Registration
Number
	Serial
Number
	Aircraft Description

	N551PM
	5374
	Gulfstream Aerospace GV-SP (G550)

	N552PM
	5382
	Gulfstream Aerospace GV-SP (G550)











3
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**Joint
      Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
      Required by Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b)**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Pure Vanilla eXchange, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), we, Steven Yevoli, Chief
      Executive Officer, and John A. Cook, Principal Financial Officer and Principal
      Accounting Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





2.
 
      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.




August
      14, 2006






/s/
      Steven
      Yevoli


Steven
      Yevoli


Chief
      Executive Officer








/s/
      John
      A.
      Cook


John
      A.
      Cook


Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Francisco Yanez AVILA, also known as Francisco Jose Yanez, also known as Jose Francisco Yanez-Avila, also known as Jose A. Yanez, also known as Jose Avila Yanez, also known as Jose Vega, also known as Jose Francisco Yanez, also known as Javier Rodriguez, also known as Jose Francisco Avila, also known as Jose Yanez-Avila, also known as Jose Fransico Yanez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-20119

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 30, 2012.

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Lourdes Rodriguez, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*355Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Jose Francisco Yanez Avila has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Yanez Avila has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th CiR. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-22-00050-CV

Pedro Perez

v.

Rudy Garza Jr.

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2021CCV-61552-5

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 7, 2022
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Boddie-Noell 
Properties, Inc. financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31,
1995 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                        700,863
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 244,817
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            1,239,229
<PP&E>                                     98,520,761
<DEPRECIATION>                            (9,020,948)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             94,351,776
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         990,053
<BONDS>                                    67,161,785
<COMMON>                                       30,167
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                 26,169,771
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               94,351,776
<SALES>                                             0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           13,725,638
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               5,090,301
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            1,644,632
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          5,362,437
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             1,628,268 
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         1,628,268 
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0 
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                1,628,268 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .54 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0 
        


</TABLE>
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 21

- 00309

- CV
DICK B. SIMMONS, SR., AND JULIE M. SIMMONS , Appellant s/Cross

Appellees

v.
WHITE KNIGHT DEVELOPMENT, LLC , Appellee /Cross

Appellant

From the 361st District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 18

- 001344

- CV

- 361

ORDER

This appeal was referred to mediation on September 16, 2022. Mediation was to

be held by November 15, 2022. On November 4, 2022, appellant s’ Motion to Set Aside

the Order for Mediation was filed. In the motion , appellants’ request the Referral for
Mediation be set aside because appellants are in their 80’s and cannot afford to pay t he

medi ator’s fee or pay any amount to settle the case.
In light of appellants’ motion to set aside , the Referral to Mediation O rder, issuedSimmons v. White Knight Development, LLC Page 2 September 16, 2022, is stayed

. Because appellee/cross

- appellant has not filed its briefs yet in this appeal,
appellee /cross

- appellant is ORDERED to file its briefs within 30 days from the date of

this Order.
Appellants’ Motion to Set Aside the Order for Mediation will be held in abeyance

until further order of the Court.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray, and Justice Johnson Mediation order stayed Briefs due Motion held in abeyance Order issued and filed November 1 7 , 2022 [RWR]
**Exhibit 32**

**CertificationPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United StatesCode)**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, UnitedStates Code), each of the undersigned officers of Osiris Therapeutics, Inc.,(the “Company”), does hereby certify, to the best of each officer’s knowledgethat:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2007 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|  Date:  May 14, 2007 |   | /s/ C. Randal Mills     |
|---------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                      |   | C. Randal Mills, Ph.D.  |
|                      |   | Chief Executive Officer |
|                      |   |                    |
| Date: May 14, 2007        |   | /s/ Cary J. Claiborne   |
|                      |   | Cary J. Claiborne       |
|                      |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.  This certification “accompanies”the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is notto be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under theSecurities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespectiveof any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

----
DA 11 - 0639 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2012 MT 173N CLIVE WELLINGTON KINLOCK, Petitioner and Appellant, v. STATE OF MONTANA, Respondent and Appellee. APPEAL FROM: Distric t Court of the Eighth Judicial District,

In and For the County of Cascade, Cause No. BDV - 06 - 084 (a) Honorable Thomas M. McKittrick, Presiding Judge COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant: Wade M. Zolynski, Chief Appellate Defender, Koan Mercer , Assistant Appe llate Defender, Helena, Montana For Appellee: Steve Bullock, Montana Attorney General, Katie F. Schulz , Assistant Attorney General, Helena, M ontana John Parker, Cascade County Attorney, Great Falls, Montana Submitted on Briefs: July 25, 2012 Decided: August 10, 2012 Filed:

__________________________________________ Clerk August 10 20122

Justice James C. Nelson delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating Rules, this case is decidedby memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports . ¶2 In 199 2, the Eighth Judicial District Court sentenced Clive W. Kinlock to 60 years at Montana State Prison on various felonies , plus a 10 - year weapone nhancement . On September

2 2, 2011, the District C ourt clarif iedthe basis of

the weapon enhancement. Kinlock appeals and requests a hearing. We previously ruled that hiss entence is leg al , however . Ki nlock v. State , No. OP 06 - 0054, 2006 Mont. LEXIS 120 ( Feb. 8, 2006) ; Ki nlock v. Mahoney , No. OP 07 - 0730 , 2008 Mont. LEXIS 240 (Jan. 23, 2008) . The Distri ct Court’ s September 22, 2011 ministerial correction changes nothing of substance. ¶3 We hav

e determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for noncitable memorandum opinions. Having reviewed the record and the arguments, we affirm the District Court’s Order. /S/ JAMES C. NELSON We concur: /S/ MIKE McGRATH /S/ BRIAN MORRIS /S/ BETH BAKER /S/ JIM RICE
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### International Trade Administration

This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 3705, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue., NW, Washington, D.C.

Docket Number: 09-014. Applicant: Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: JEOL, Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 74 FR 23394, May 19, 2009.

Docket Number: 09-018. Applicant: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4458. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: See notice at 74 FR 23394, May 19, 2009.

Docket Number: 09-020. Applicant: Columbia University, New York, NY 10032. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, the Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 74 FR 23394, May 19, 2009.

                    Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of equivalent scientific value to the foreign                           ( print page 31253)                        instrument, for such purposes as these instruments are intended to be used, was being manufactured in the United States at the time the instruments were ordered. Reasons: Each foreign instrument is an electron microscope and is intended for research or scientific educational uses requiring an electron microscope. We know of no electron microscope, or any other instrument suited to these purposes, which was being manufactured in the United States at the time of order of each instrument.                

Dated: June 22, 2009.

Christopher Cassel,

Acting Director.

Subsidies Enforcement Office.

Import Administration.

[FR Doc. E9-15491 Filed 6-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
#### WILSON v. GAS SERVICE CO.

No. 5317.

United States District Court W. D. Missouri, W. D.

April 1, 1949.

Henry A. Riederer and Fred J. Freel, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

Chas. M. Miller, Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.

REEVES, Chief Judge.

Under the provisions of Rule 36, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., the plaintiff has filed 23 requests for admissions as to facts in the case. The first request is typical and illustrative of all the others r “That on June 10, 1948, a gas explosion and subsequent fire occurred in and to the premises at 1235-37 West 75th Street, Kansas City, Missouri.”

The Rule provides that a request for admissions as to “the truth of any relevant matters of fact set forth” may be served “upon any other party.” This Rule was properly construed in the case of Hopsdal v. Loewenstein, D.C., 7 F.R.D. 263, where District Judge La Buy of the N. D. of Illinois E. D. said in citing another case, Booth Fisheries Corp. v. General Foods Corp. D.C., 1939, 27 F.Supp. 268, 271. “ ‘In submitting to plaintiff for admission the truth of statements of fact provable by the testimony of third parties, defendants are seeking to cast upon the plaintiff the burden and expense of proving their case.’ ” This is precisely the situation here except that plaintiff is seeking to cast the burden upon defendant. Whether a gas explosion occurred and the causes thereof are provable by third parties and ordinarily would not be within the knowledge of the defendant except upon information and belief. Under such circumstances, the motion to quash or to dismiss the request for admissions should be sustained, and it will be so ordered.
RECEIVED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS - DEC 23 20f5

marcus Leslie, § AbelAcosta Clerk

Appellant pro se § '

§

US. § COA CASE NO. 06-15-00057-CR

§ RLED ihi

THE STATE OF TEXAS t § COURT OF CRIMING APPEALS

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME r"-> o ^,

TO FILE PRO SE '""" c - ^-

PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, Marcus Leslie,. styled hereinafter as "Appellant" pro se and

respectfully files this Motion for Extension of Time in which to file a

Petition for Discretionary Review (PDR), pursuant to Tex.RulesApp.Proc. 68.

On December 3, 2015 the Sixth Court of Appeals rendered its opinion

regarding Appellant's Direct Appeal; to delete the deadly weapon finding from

the trial court's judgment and affirm the judgment, as modified.

For the following reasons, Appellant is requesting an additional 60-days to

prepare his PDR:

1) Appellant's deadline for filing a PDR is January 3, 2015;

2) Appellant has requested no previous extensions of time in this action;

3) Appellant is a pro se litigant and a layman to law and all of its

complicated rules, and should not be held to the exact same time constraints

and standards as a licensed attorney; and

k) inherent delays with the prison law library's next-day shepardizing

and inter-loan system, limited legal resources, and outdated books, addtional time is required to receive legal material and cases, research,

compose, and deliver documents to the courts.

Because of these reasons and in order to adequately prepare an effective

and viable PDR worthy of this Court's consideration, Appellant request this

Honorable Court to extend his time to file his PDR.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant PRAYS that this Court GRANT

this motion and extend the deadline to file the PDR an additional 60-days.

The applicant presents this motion for no reason of delay other than justice

being served.

[SUBMITTED and SUBSCRIBED on this the £j_ day' of December 2015]

Page 1 of 2

Ab@l Acosta, Clerk
Respectfully submitted

Appellant pro se

Connally Unit

899 FM 632

Kenedy, Texas 7B119

TDC3 #2001223

DECLARATION

"I, Marcus Leslie, TDCO #2001223, presently incarcerated in

The TDCD-CID at the ConnallyUnit in Karnes County, Texas, declare

under penalty of perjury under Chapter 132 of Texas Civil Practices

and Remedies Code and 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the facts stated in

this motion are true and correct: and that I placed this document

in the prison mailbox on this date."

"Executed on this the fi\ day of December 2015

Marcus Leslie, pro se

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on this the J$ J day of December 2015, I sent

the following parties a true and correct copy of this motion by

U.S. Mail thru the prison mail system in a postage paid package

to the addresses listed below;

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

P.O. Box 12308, Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711-2308

Attn: Abel Acosta, Court Clerk

District Attorney's Office

601 Main St.

Texarkana, Texas 75501

Attn: Lauren Sutton, Asst.DA

Marcus Leslie, #2001223

Page 2 of 2
#### Frederick Gavitt et al., Appellants, v Citnalta Construction Corporation et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[821 NYS2d 766]

*407Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland De-Grasse, J.), entered August 16, 2005, after jury verdict in favor of defendants Citnalta Construction and New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The jury found that the unsafe condition of the workplace was not the result of negligence on the part of defendants Citnalta and NYCTA, and they did not violate Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.8 (a) by failing to provide eye protection suitable for the hazardous work performed.

Plaintiffs’ assertion that the verdict was irreconcilably inconsistent is unpreserved since they failed to raise this issue before the court discharged the jury *(see Barry v Manglass,*55 NY2d 803, 806 [1981]; *Tanya Knitwear [PVT], Ltd. v Young Stuff Apparel Group, Inc.,*12 AD3d 258 [2004]), and we decline to address the issue. This is not a case where the weight-of-evidence and inconsistency arguments are inextricably interwoven, inasmuch as the jury here specifically found that Citnalta and NYCTA were not negligent *(compare Skowronski v Mordino, 4*AD3d 782 [2004]).

The verdict was also not against the weight of the evidence, as the jury could have reached its verdict based on a reasonable interpretation of the evidence *(see Cohen v Hallmark Cards,*45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]), and such a determination should not be lightly set aside *(Pavlou v City of New York,*21 AD3d 74, 76 [2005], *appeal dismissed*5 NY3d 878 [2005]). Concur—Buckley, EJ., Mazzarelli, Williams, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.