alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document

Exhibit 10.6

Amendment No. 2 to Third Amended and Restated Employment Agreement
This Amendment No. 2 to Third Amended And Restated Employment Agreement (the “Amendment”) is effective as of January 1, 2022 (“Effective Date”) by and between Healthcare Realty Trust Incorporated, a Maryland corporation (“Corporation”), and Todd J. Meredith (“Officer”).
Recitals
Whereas, the Corporation has heretofore employed the Officer as its President and Chief Executive Officer under the terms of an employment agreement dated February 16, 2016 as amended by Amendment No. 1 effective January 1, 2020 (as amended, the “Employment Agreement”); and
Whereas, the parties desire to modify the Employment Agreement with this Amendment; 
Now, Therefore, in consideration of the foregoing premises, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby affirmed, the parties hereto agree to the following to amend the Employment Agreement as of the Effective Date:
1.    Section 3.1 of the Employment Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and the following substituted in its place:
3.1    Base Salary. As payment for the services to be rendered by Officer as provided in Section 1 and subject to the terms and conditions of Section 2, Corporation agrees to pay to Officer a “Base Salary” at the rate of $850,000 per annum payable in equal semi-monthly installments, or in such other periodic installments as mutually agreed to by Corporation and Officer. 
2.    This Amendment represents the entire understanding among the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and, as of the Effective Date, this Amendment supersedes any and all prior understandings, agreements, plans and negotiations, whether written or oral, with respect to the subject matter hereof. All modifications to the Employment Agreement, as amended hereby, must be in writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement of such modification is sought. Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, the Employment Agreement remains unaltered and in full force and effect. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement. 


[Execution Page Follows]


    






EXECUTION PAGE


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the 18th day of February, 2022 to be effective as of the Effective Date.
Corporation:
Healthcare Realty Trust Incorporated


By: /s/ John M. Bryant, Jr.     
Name:    John M. Bryant, Jr.
Title:    Executive Vice President and General Counsel




Officer:




/s/ Todd J. Meredith    
                    Todd J. Meredith
    2
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
    Date: June 6, 2008
    
    
    
    /s/ Robert A. Virtue

Robert A. Virtue
President and Chief Executive Officer of Virco Mfg.
Corporation
(Principal Executive Officer)
    Date: June 6, 2008
    
    
    
    /s/ Robert E. Dose

Robert E. Dose
Vice President of Finance of Virco Mfg. Corporation
(Principal Financial Officer)
  End of Filing
 18
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier MUNOZ-PERALTA, aka Armando Estrada Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-10236.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 13, 2004.

Decided May 3, 2004.

*720Fred Wallace Slaughter, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Ralph E. Ellinwood, Ellinwood & Bates, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Defendant/Appellant Javier Munoz-Peralta “was not under constant observation by governmental authorities from the moment he set foot in this country until the moment of his arrest.” *United States v. Ramos-Godinez,*273 F.3d 820, 825 (9th Cir.2001) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Munoz-Peralta crossed the border undetected, and the government was first alerted to the possibility that someone may have crossed the border when Munoz-Peralta triggered the sensor approximately 200 yards from the border. Additionally, the government tracked Munoz-Peralta by following his footprints. *See United States v. Hernandez-Herrera,*273 F.3d 1213, 1219 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that a defendant is free from official restraint when “[pjersistent tracking, rather than visual surveillance, led to [the alien’s] apprehension”).

The district court properly declined to give an “official restraint” jury instruction, because the evidence did not support such a theory. *See United States v. Castellanos-Garcia,*270 F.3d 773, 777 (9th Cir.2001). Likewise, the denial of MunozPeralta’s motion for acquittal was appropriate, because the government presented sufficient evidence from which a rational trier of fact could have concluded that Munoz-Peralta entered the United States free from official restraint. *See Ramos-Godinez,*273 F.3d at 825; *see also Hernandez-Herrera,*273 F.3d at 1218 (articulating the standard of review for a motion for acquittal).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
ex10-30.htm


 


Exhibit 10.30













 




  





1











  




 





 


 


 




  





2











  






 







 


 




  





3











  






 





 


 




  





4











  









 




  





5











  






 





6
2 2. We are astounded and incensed that there is no sense of urgency reflected in the AOC and SOW to address

even the existing, known contamination problem. In the early 2000s, the Navy already found petroleum stains in

the bedrock under 19 of the 20 tanks, which indicated leaking. In 2014, there was a 27,000 gallon leak of jet fuel

from one of the tanks. As stated by the Board of Water Supply in their testimony dated June 18, 2015, " the AOC

needs to require clean

‐ up of the contamination that is presently in the groundwater and rocks underneath the

tanks to reduce the amount available for migration to those parts of the aquifer that are still

uncontaminated ." Immediate action must be required. Why must we wait for the contamination to worsen

before taking action, when it will be too late?

3. The AOC should not provide for studies and pilot programs of unknown duration to be conducted before

further remediation action can proceed. Historically, bureaucratic government studies and pilots invariably

result in lengthy, years

‐ long delays and ultimately add to overall costs for taxpayers. The Board of Water Supply

testified that the AOC administrative record indicates that past studies were already done and identified

potential improvements which have yet to be acted upon. Furthermore, it appears that the Navy already had

similar experiences with upgrading tank structures in 1998 and 2008, which must have been preceded by studies

(See SOW, page 1). Therefore, the AOC should first state whether or not such past studies were, in fact,

previously done and why recommendations presented in those studies were not implemented.

4. While the Department of Health would be a signatory for the AOC, would that then bind the Board of Water

Supply and its customers to the AOC as well, and preclude the parties from seeking reimbursement for expenses

that may be incurred: (1) to clean

‐ up contaminated water and (2) to pursue alternatives to take the place of

contaminated water that is deemed prohibitive to treat? If so, then we feel that the Board of Water Supply

needs to be a party to the AOC discussions/development to represent the Oahu community's interests. In

addition, federal reimbursement of expenses for clean

‐ up and water source alternatives need to be required

in the AOC

. Responsibility for increased costs must be borne by the party responsible for causing the problem,

and not by innocent Oahu citizens.

Finally, we object to the short 30

‐ day time period for your agency to receive comments on such a critical matter. As

pointed out by the Board of Water Supply in their testimony dated June 18, 2015, not all information was made

available until midway through the comment period. Therefore, we urge that an extension be granted, until July 31,

2015, to allow the Board of Water Supply and concerned citizens who are only now becoming aware of the issue to

provide comments, and help reassure that this is a meaningful, transparent process.

We respectfully ask that you consider our comments and recommendations. Thank you.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2524 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2524

          To extend the temporary suspension of duty on DEMBB.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 7, 2012

 Ms. Landrieu introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To extend the temporary suspension of duty on DEMBB.

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

SECTION 1. DEMBB.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.11.06 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to DEMBB) is amended by 
striking the date in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/
2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
S/1a CQC 

### Water Heater Energy Conservation Standards Public Hearing

June 20, 2000 r')

### T Vent System Modifications * Type-B vent connectors * Reline masonry chimneys * Costs? * Where required? : : - '

- Maximum RE allowed?

- Which houses?

- What percent ofhouses?

### Size Constraints m Fraction ofmarket affected m Impacts

- space too small

- lowboys & table top units

- cost oflarger drain pans

- additional plumbing costs forlarger tanks * Alternative approaches to maintain consumer utility ?* Propane water heaters? * Lowboy and tabletop water heaters? * Instantaneous water heaters? SP\~i

### Costs and Efficiency Improvements

· Heat traps * Fluebaffles for gas waterheaters * Tank-bottom insulation on electric water heaters X

### Thicker insulation

### Daily Hot WaterUsage * Gas vs. Electric * RECS-97 Data , Impacts ofclothes washer standards.

### Oil-Fired Water Heaters Are cost-effective improvements to oilfired water heaters possible?
'»~ .T

### Blowing Agents * Availability

- production capacity

- dates * Costs * Single source * Global Warming Potential (GWP)Energy Factor Rating * EF overrating ofhigh efficiency electric waterheaters * WATSIM accuracy

### AMarket Shar * Current market shares * Trends for market shares * Implicit discount rates * RECS97* Correlation ofcost and price data

- 1model formanufacturer cost

- Many models for retail price * methodology

- Retail prices 

### + by manufacturer cost (NOPR)

- Standard markup factors (Battelle)Life-Cycle Cost Analysis * What is band ofinsignificance? * What is the appropriate fraction ofpopulation that should benefit from standards? * Is lifetime too low for gas WH's?

### Iifective Date of 

### New Standard * Is the new standard tobe effective three or five years afterpromulgation? * Because ofuncertainties about the availability ofHFC-245fa should DOE delay effective date ofstandards?
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                            1811
<SECURITIES>                                         8
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1819
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1819
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              106
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        1713
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1819
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    69
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      132
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (63)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (63)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.77)


</TABLE>
# L_2013121EN.01004701.xml

| 3.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 121/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 121/47

---

NOTICE TO READERS

Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union

In accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 69, 13.3.2013, p. 1), as of 1 July 2013, only the electronic edition of the Official Journal shall be considered authentic and shall have legal effect.

Official Journal of the European Union

Where it is not possible to publish the electronic edition of the Official Journal due to unforeseen and exceptional circumstances, the printed edition shall be authentic and shall have legal effect in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 216/2013.

---
John Paul COOK, III, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Lury Guaty COOK, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

No. 3D16-2193

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 7, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES- OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, Scott L. Beiser, Chief Executive Officer of Houlihan Lokey, Inc. (the "Company"), certifies with respect to the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10- K/A for the annual period ended March 31, 2016 (the "Report") that, to the best of his knowledge:


|   |                                                                                                                      
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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.

Date: July 28, 2016/s/ SCOTT L. BEISERScott L. BeiserChief Executive Officer
# C_2009035EN.01S00301.xml

| 12.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6750
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL K. MOORE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR-92-301-S, CA-97-1351-S) Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 17, 1997 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith Eric Golden, GOLDEN, MEIZLISH & ELWOOD CO., L.P.A., Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. Brent Jefferson Gur ney, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no re versible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Moore , Nos. CR-92-301-S; CA-97-1351-S (D. Md. Apr. 28, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Mary McIntyre TOCA v. David Joseph TOCA

NO. 2018-CC-0462

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 11, 2018

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Milton BARRERA-CAMPOS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 01-50719.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.*

Decided May 18, 2004.

US Atty CAS, Lawrence E. Spong, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Milton Barrera-Campos, U.S. Penitentiary, Florence, CO, pro se.

Rebecca P. Jones, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Milton Barrera-Campos appeals an order of the district court denying his motion to quash a detainer issued against him in relation to a violation of supervised release. We dismiss the appeal as moot.

The record indicates that the sentence imposed upon revocation of Campos’ supervised release ended on March 5, 2004. At this juncture, therefore, “there is nothing for us to remedy[.]” *Spencer v. Kemna,*523 U.S. 1, 18, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998) (concluding that a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging an order revoking parole was moot because no case-or-controversy standing under Article III remained after petitioner had completed the entire term of imprisonment underlying his parole revocation).

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Document

Exhibit 10.19
RELEASE OF CERTAIN GUARANTORS
Reference is made to that certain Fourth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of February 8, 2021 (the “Fourth Supplemental Indenture”), among Diversified Healthcare Trust (formerly known as Senior Housing Properties Trust), a Maryland real estate investment trust, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee (the “Trustee”), each of the Subsidiaries listed on Schedule 1 attached hereto (each, a “Released Guarantor”) and certain other Subsidiaries of the Company, as Guarantors, to the Indenture, dated as of February 18, 2016 (the “Indenture”), between the Company and the Trustee, relating to the Company’s 4.375% Senior Notes due 2031 (the “Notes”).  The terms defined in the Fourth Supplemental Indenture are used herein as therein defined, unless otherwise defined herein.
Pursuant to Section 6 of the Fourth Supplemental Indenture, the undersigned, as Trustee, hereby confirms the release and discharge of each Released Guarantor from any and all obligations and liabilities under the Subsidiary Guarantee, and further hereby confirms the termination and release of each Released Guarantor of all other obligations under the Fourth Supplemental Indenture, the Indenture or the Notes, each as of January 28, 2022.


Dated as of January 28, 2022.
U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee
By:    /s/ David W. Doucette                                   
Name: David W. Doucette
Title:  Vice President








SCHEDULE 1
RELEASED GUARANTORS


1.The LSMD Fund 30 Newcrossing LLC (formerly known as SNH 30 Newcrossing Inc.)
2.The LSMD Fund Concord LLC (formerly known as SNH Concord LLC)
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

AARON FULMORE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-343

[June 1, 2016]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Paul L. Backman, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 03-7010 CF10A.

Aaron D. Fulmore, Live Oak, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b) and Sanders v. State, 946 So. 2d 

953 (Fla. 2006).

GROSS, DAMOORGIAN and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
----

----

| (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:   September                28, 2007 | By:    | /s/                BRUCE                STEPHENS             |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                      |   | Bruce                Stephens                                                                                            |
|                                                      |   | Chief                Executive Officer and                                                                               |
|                                                      |   | Principal                Accounting Officer                                                                              |

----