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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

                                                                       (Windsor)

                       SECOND AMENDMENT TO LOAN AGREEMENT

          This Second Amendment to Loan Agreement is effective as of July 1,
2006, by and between DIVERSICARE WINDSOR HOUSE, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company (together with its successors and assigns, the "Borrower"),
and CAPMARK FINANCE INC., a California corporation, formerly known as GMAC
Commercial Mortgage Corporation, a California corporation (together with its
successors and assigns, the "Lender").

                                    RECITALS:

          A. Borrower and the Lender entered that certain Loan Agreement dated
March 29, 2001, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Loan Agreement
dated April 1, 2006 (the "Agreement"). Unless otherwise defined in this Second
Amendment, capitalized terms shall have the meaning given to them in the
Agreement.

          B. The Borrower and the Lender desire to amend the Agreement and have
agreed to execute this Second Amendment to evidence such modification.

                                    AGREEMENT

          NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above Recitals, the Borrower
and the Lender hereby amend the Agreement as follows:

          1. Paragraph 1.1, "Maturity Date" is hereby amended by changing the
date to "September 1, 2006".

          Except as expressly amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect in accordance with its terms.

            [THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

<PAGE>

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Borrower and the Lender have caused this
Second Amendment to be properly executed by their respective duly authorized
officers as of the date first above written.

                                        DIVERSICARE WINDSOR HOUSE, LLC, a
                                        Delaware limited liability company

                                        By: Diversicare Leasing Corp., a
                                        Tennessee corporation

                                        Its: Sole Member


                                        By: /s/ Glynn Riddle
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Glynn Riddle,
                                            Chief Financial Officer


                                        CAPMARK FINANCE INC., a California
                                        corporation, formerly known as GMAC
                                        Commercial Mortgage Corporation, a
                                        California corporation


                                        By: /s/ Laura Y. McDonald
                                            ------------------------------------
                                        Its: Senior Vice President


                                       2
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   First Quarterly Progress Report              

#   First Quarterly Progress Report

##           Downloads        

DOL_FMSHRCReport.pdf

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: (202)434-9900TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-1079V

UNPUBLISHED

ANGELINE FLETCHER,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: October 21, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Damages Decision Based on Proffer; 

Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder 

Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

John Robert Howie, Howie Law, PC, Dallas, TX, for petitioner.

Lynn Christina Schlie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On July 25, 2019, Angeline Fletcher filed a petition2for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.3(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges she suffered a SIRVA on July 27, 2016 after receiving 

a Tdap vaccination. Amended Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special 

Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On October 19, 2020, Respondent filed a joint Rule 4(c) report and proffer on 

award of compensation (“Proffer”). On October 21, 2020, a ruling on entitlement was 

issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for SIRVA. The October 19, 2020 

Proffer indicated that Petitioner should be awarded $80,000.00. Proffer at 5. In the Proffer, 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the 

E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of

Electronic Government Services). This means the decision will be available to anyone with access to 

the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact 

medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. 

If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from 

public access. 

2 Petitioner filed an amended petition on June 18, 2020.

3 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease 

of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 

(2012).
2

Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on 

the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.

Pursuant to the terms stated in the Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum 

payment of $80,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount

represents compensation for all damages that would be available under § 15(a). 

The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this 

decision.4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master

4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice 

renouncing the right to seek review.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1795

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to assist

schools and educational institutions in the elimination of sexual harassment and abuse.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 21, 1993

Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Ms. WOOLSEY, Ms. LONG, Mrs. SCHROEDER, Ms.

NORTON, Ms. PELOSI, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, and Ms.

MARGOLIES-MEZVINSKY) introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Education and Labor

A BILL

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

of 1965 to assist schools and educational institutions

in the elimination of sexual harassment and abuse.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as ‘‘Sexual Harassment Free

5 Schools Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

7 Subparagraph (C) of section 1471(7) of the Elemen8 tary and Secondary Education Act is amended—
2

•HR 1795 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘effective schools’’; and

2 (2) in clause (iii) of such subparagraph, by in3 serting ‘‘, including an environment free from sexual

4 harassment and abuse,’’ after ‘‘orderly school envi5 ronment’’.

6 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS.

7 Paragraph (3) of section 1542 of the Elementary and

8 Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended—

9 (1) by striking ‘‘effective schools’’; and

10 (2) in subparagraph (C) of such paragraph, by

11 inserting ‘‘, including an environment free from sex12 ual harassment and abuse,’’ after ‘‘orderly school en13 vironment’’.

14 SEC. 4. WOMEN’S EDUCATIONAL EQUITY.

15 Paragraph (1) of section 4002(a) of the Elementary

16 and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended—

17 (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and

18 (F) as (F) and (G), respectively; and

19 (2) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the

20 following:

21 ‘‘(E) development and implementation of

22 programs to address sexual harassment and vio23 lence as part of efforts to ensure that edu24 cational institutions are free from threats to the

25 safety of students and employees;’’.
3

•HR 1795 IH

1 SEC. 5. PROGRAMS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF COM2 PREHENSIVE SCHOOL HEALTH EDUCATION.

3 Subsection (b) of section 4605 of the Elementary and

4 Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended—

5 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (7), (8), (9),

6 and (10) as (8), (9), (10), and (11), respectively;

7 and

8 (2) by inserting after paragraph (6) the follow9 ing:

10 ‘‘(7) sexual harassment and assault;’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          60,334
<SECURITIES>                                   417,879
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,772
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               665,225
<PP&E>                                          31,142
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,070
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,293,691
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          830,075
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,457
<OTHER-SE>                                     128,896
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,293,691
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               107,604
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   44,313
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,690
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,623
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 387
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 31,591
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,807
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,784
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,784
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    50.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    50.37


</TABLE>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JANUARY 23, 2015

NO. 03-13-00385-CV

Armando Salazar, Appellant

v.

Patricia Salazar, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 426TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND FIELD

VACATED AND RENDERED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on March 15, 2013. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that because the 2008 decree was 

a final judgment, the trial court lost plenary power to “set aside” the decree thirty days after it 

was signed. We therefore vacate the trial court’s later decree, signed March 15, 2013, and render 

judgment that the “Final Decree of Divorce,” signed July 9, 2008, was a final judgment. The 

appellee Patricia Salazar shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the 

court below.
**FEDERALMINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION**

 

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

 

BAC 6735-01

 

February 12, 2016

 

 

TIMEAND DATE:                11:00 a.m., Thursday, February 25, 2016

 

PLACE:                                  TheRichard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20004 (enter from    F Street entrance)

 

STATUS:                                Open

 

MATTERSTO BE 

CONSIDERED:                     TheCommission will consider and act upon the following in open session: *Secretaryof Labor v. Leeco, Inc.,*Docket No. KENT 2012-166.**(Issues includewhether the Judge erred in ruling that the mine operator was negligent where acontinuous miner operator placed himself in an unsafe location.)

 

 

Any person attending this meeting who requires specialaccessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign languageinterpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs.  Subject to29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

 

 

CONTACTPERSON 

FOR MORE INFO:                EmogeneJohnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

                                                Relay/ 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                __________________________________

                                                SarahL. Stewart

                                                DeputyGeneral Counsel
# U n i t ed S t at es C o u rt o f A p p eal s

F or t he S e ve nt h C i r c u i t

C hi c a go, I l l i noi s 60604

November 2 , 2006



### B e f or e

H o n

. R I C H A R D A. P O S N E R , Circuit Judg e



### H o n

. F R A N K H. E A S T E R B R O O K , Circuit J udge



### H o n

. D I A N E S. S Y K E S , Circuit Judge

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , Plaintiff

- Appellee

,



### N o

. 05

- 3106 v.

M A R K A. E L D E R , Defendant

- Appellant

. Appeal from the United

States District Court

for the Central

District of Illinois

.

No. 04

- CR

- 200

- 49

Michael P. McCuskey

, Chief Judge

.

Order

The slip opinion of this court issued on November 1, 2006,

is amended as follows:

Page 3, first full paragraph, at the end of line 12, add

“ as ” after the word “ effect ”

.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David CASAS-HERRERA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-50107.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*213Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 22, 2010.

Christopher Seth Askins, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Timothy Robert Garrison, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

David Casas-Herrera appeals from the 10-month sentence imposed following revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Casas-Herrera contends that the sentence is unreasonable because the district court procedurally erred in failing to adequately address his mitigating arguments and explain the reasons for imposing a 10-month sentence. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err. *See Rita v. United States,*551 U.S. 338, 358-59, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). The record also reflects that, under the totality of the circumstances, Casas-Herrera’s sentence is substantively reasonable. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51-52, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *see also United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, J. Bryan Baker, certify that:
(1)  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of FirstCity Financial Corporation; (2)  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report; (3)  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report; (4)  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
(5)  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and  (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.  Date: May 23, 2005      /s/ J. Bryan Baker        J. Bryan Baker
|  | (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. |
|--|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:  |        /s/ D. JONATHAN MERRIMAN |
|-----------|-------------------------------------------|
|      |        D. Jonathan Merriman          |
|      |        Chief Executive Officer       |
|      |                                      |
| By:       |        /s/ PETER V. COLEMAN          |
|      |         Peter V. Coleman        |
|      |        Chief Financial Officer       |

----