alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.1






Amendment No. 2

to

Services Agreement




Amendment No. 2 is made and entered into as of November 30, 2009 by and between American
Realty Capital II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“ARC II”) and Healthcare Trust of
America, Inc. (formerly Grubb & Ellis Healthcare REIT, Inc)., a Maryland corporation (the “REIT”).



1. The Effective Date of the Services Agreement (“Agreement”) dated April 3, 2009, as amended,
between ARC II and the REIT is changed to January 15, 2010.



2. Except as amended herein, the Agreement remains in full force and effect.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement as of the
date first above written.




American Realty Capital II, LLC




By: /s/ William M. Kahane

Name: William M. Kahane

Title: President





Healthcare Trust of America, Inc.




By: /s/ Kellie S. Pruitt

Name: Kellie S. Pruitt

Title: Chief Accounting Officer
##### 



Exhibit 12.1
 STATEMENT REGARDING CALCULATION OF RATIO OF CONSOLIDATED EARNINGS TO CONSOLIDATED
FIXED CHARGES
(Dollars in thousands)
 Years Ended December 31,2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002
    
    
    2001Pre-tax income (loss), as reported
    
    $
    204,063
    
    
    $
    16,233
    
    
    $
    204,792
    
    
    $
    126,047
    
    
    $
    (170,050
    )Equity in earnings of investees1
    
    
    19,026
    
    
    
    5,205
    
    
    
    11,229
    
    
    
    9,939
    
    
    
    Pre-tax income (loss) before adjustment for
equity in earnings of equity investees
    
    
    185,037
    
    
    
    11,028
    
    
    
    193,563
    
    
    
    116,108
    
    
    
    (170,050
    )Fixed charges:Interest expense
    
    
    53,078
    
    
    
    63,841
    
    
    
    37,245
    
    
    
    17,502
    
    
    
    14,738Rentals representing interest
    
    
    3,810
    
    
    
    2,893
    
    
    
    4,829
    
    
    
    3,468
    
    
    
    4,123Total fixed charges
    
    
    56,888
    
    
    
    66,734
    
    
    
    42,074
    
    
    
    20,970
    
    
    
    18,861Distributed income of equity investees
    
    
    9,148
    
    
    
    7,255
    
    
    
    24,444
    
    
    
    1,182
    
    
    
    Pre-tax income (loss) before equity in
earnings of investees plus fixed charges
and distributed income of equity method
investees
    
    $
    251,073
    
    
    $
    85,017
    
    
    $
    260,081
    
    
    $
    138,260
    
    
    $
    (151,189
    )Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    4.4
    x
    
    
    1.3
    x
    
    
    6.2
    x
    
    
    6.6
    x
    
    
    
    2
 
 1
    
    Equity in earnings of investees is in respect of those investments that are
investment companies or similar equity method investees and, as such, are included as
part of investment income on the consolidated statements of income.2
    
    Due to the Companys loss for the year ended December 31, 2001, the ratio
coverage was less than 1:1. Additional earnings of $170,050 would have achieved a
coverage ratio of 1:1.
# C_2020019EN.01001301.xml

| 20.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 15 October 2019 — Ramada Storax SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-756/19)

(2020/C 19/17)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ramada Storax S.A.

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Question referred

Can Articles 90 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 ..., the principles of VAT neutrality and of proportionality and the fundamental economic freedoms be interpreted as permitting the Portuguese legislature, pursuant to Article 78(7)(b) of the Código do Imposto sobre o Valor Acrescentado (Value Added Tax Code), approved by Decree-Law No 394-B of 26 December 1984, to restrict adjustments of value added tax (VAT) for debts deemed irrecoverable in insolvency proceedings to the circumstances referred to in that article (that is, where the insolvency has been declared a simplified insolvency, once the ruling on the admission and ranking of claims referred to in the Código da Insolvência e da Recuperação de Empresas (Corporate Insolvency and Recovery Code), approved by Decree-Law No 53 of 18 March 2004, has become final, or following approval of the plan, where such plan exists, agreed under Article 156 of that code), with the result that rulings by courts of other Member States declaring debts claimed in insolvency proceedings irrecoverable are not recognised for that purpose?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

---
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. CP20-48-000]

                    On June 11, 2021, the Commission issued a notice setting August 2, 2021, as the date to file comments on the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Enhancement by Compression Project. The comment due date was based on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issuing its                     **Federal Register**                     Notice of Availability of the EIS on the following Friday, June 18, 2021, consistent with EPA's filing guidance and procedures. However, in observance of Juneteenth (as announced on June 17, 2021), the EPA did not issue its                     **Federal Register**                     notice for the EIS until June 25, 2021. Per Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Section 1506.11, it is the EPA's notice that establishes the beginning dates for comment periods on EISs. Therefore, the Commission is notifying all interested parties that the comment period now expires on August 9, 2021.                

Dated: July 8, 2021.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2021-14943 Filed 7-13-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
# C_2019187EN.01004601.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/46

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 14 March 2019 — Dexia Nederland BV v XXX

(Case C-229/19)

(2019/C 187/49)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dexia Nederland BV

Defendant: XXX

Question referred

Should Directive 93/13 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a contractual term, from the point of view of the criteria laid down in that directive, should already be regarded as unfair if that contractual term, assessed in the light of all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract, contains the mere possibility of causing a significant imbalance depending on the circumstances that materialise during the course of the contract, in particular because that contractual term fixes in advance a potential advantage that arises for the seller at the time of the premature termination of the contract, at a certain percentage of the remaining lease sum, thereby derogating from the applicable rules of national law under which such an advantage is not fixed in advance but must be determined on the basis of the circumstances attending the termination of the contract, in particular, the level of the interest rate that should be applied for the remaining duration of the contract to an amount received prematurely?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. 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 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 21, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10295 Conference Calendar

DARRYL WAYNE HARTFIELD Petitioner-Appellant
v. DAN JOSLIN, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Seagoville, Texas Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CV-1709 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Darryl Wayne Hartfield, federal prisoner # 23121-077, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he challenged the enhancement of his sentence based on prior burglary and attempted burglary convictions under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), and the career offender guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Hartfield argues that he is actually innocent of the sentence enhancement because his prior attempted burglaryNo. 06-10295

2 conviction is not a “crime of violence” for purposes of § 924(e) and § 4B1.1 and further argues that his counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the enhancement of his sentence. In order to satisfy the criteria of the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 savings clause, Hartfield must show that his claim is based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that he may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense and that the claim wasforeclosed by circuit lawat the time when it should have been raised at trial, on appeal, or in an initial § 2255 motion. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). Hartfield has not made the requisite showing. See Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209, 213-14 (5th Cir. 20 00). Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal of Hartfield’s § 2241 petition is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 23
                                                                      ----------



                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                    -----------------------------------------

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 and S-3 (Nos. 33-60145, 33-61275, 33-61277 and 333-31280)
of our report dated February 29, 2004, relating to the financial statements
incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of BIW Limited for
the year ended December 31, 2003.




/s/
-------------------------------------------
Dworken, Hillman, LaMorte & Sterczala, P.C.

March 24, 2004
Shelton, Connecticut
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Alton Anjie Simmons

Appellate case number: 01-14-00284-CR; 01-14-00285-CR; 01-14-00286-CR

Trial court case number: 12-CR-1392; 12-CR-1393; 12-CR-1394

Trial court: 10th District Court of Galveston County

On April 3, 2014, relator, Alton Anjie Simmons, filed a petition for a writ of 

mandamus and a motion for emergency stay, requesting that the “Court stay the trial 

court’s order permitting release of Relator’s medical information.” Relator’s motion for 

emergency stay is denied.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Justice Rebeca Huddle

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: April 4, 2014
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mark Harrison, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jaspan, J.), rendered May 1,1981, convicting him of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel is hereby relieved of his assignment *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). O’Connor, J. P., Weinstein, Brown and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We have issued our reports dated March 5, 2010 with respect to the financial statements, schedule, and internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of Computer Programs and Systems, Inc. on Form 10-K for the yearended December 31, 2009. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Computer Programs and Systems, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-97431, effective July 31, 2002 and File No. 333-131165,effective January 20, 2006). 

/s/  GRANT THORNTON LLP 

Atlanta, Georgia 

March 5, 2010
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-12-00310-CV

Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission and Alan Steen, Administrator, Appellants

v.

Connoisseur Encounters Company, Inc. d/b/a The Wine Cellar at Bee Cave, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 200TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-12-00388, HONORABLE SCOTT H. JENKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Connoisseur Encounters Company, Inc. d/b/a The Wine Cellar at Bee Cave has

informed this Court that the parties have resolved the underlying case and has filed an unopposed

motion to dismissit. Counsel for Connoisseur Encounters states that she has conferred with counsel

for Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission and Alan Steen, Administrator, who do not oppose this

motion. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________

Jeff Rose, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Rose and Goodwin

Dismissed on Appellee’s Motion

Filed: November 7, 2013
# C_2019413EN.01002401.xml

| 9.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 413/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 413/24

---

Appeal brought on 14 August 2019 by Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 6 June 2019 in Case T-210/18, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-614/19 P)

(2019/C 413/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (represented by: C. Klawitter, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Autec AG

By order of 24 October 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to pay its own costs.

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-10963 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TRINIDAD DURON, also known as Trini, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:00-CR-477-2-X

-------------------- June 18, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Trinidad Duron (“Duron”) appeals the district court’s sentencing following the jury conviction for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute methamphetamine and possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Duron contends that his sentence violates Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), because the factors used to increase his sentence were not submitted to the jury.No. 01-10963 -2- Duron’s sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum, and therefore Apprendi is inapplicable. See United States v. Keith , 230 F.3d 784, 787 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1182 (2001). Duron’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
# C_2019357EN.01001501.xml

| 21.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/15

---

Appeal brought on 8 July 2019 by Jakov Ardalic and others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2019 in Joined Cases T-523/16 and T-542/16, Ardalic and Others v Council

(Case C-518/19 P)

(2019/C 357/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Jakov Ardalic, Liliana Bicanova, Monica Brunetto, Claudia Istoc, Sylvie Jamet, Despina Kanellou, Christian Stouraitis, Abdelhamid Azbair, Abdel Bouzanih, Bob Kitenge Ya Musenga, El Miloud Sadiki, Cam Tran Thi (represented by: S. Orlandi, T. Martin, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | annul the decision no longer to allow the appellants, as of 2014, travelling time or reimbursement of annual travel expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision no longer to allow the appellants, as of 2014, travelling time or reimbursement of annual travel expenses;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants claim that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by a number of errors of law.

Firstly, the General Court erred in law in paragraphs 65 and 73 of the judgment in limiting the extent of the judicial review it is required to carry out to ‘manifest’ cases.

Secondly, the General Court erred in law in paragraphs 68 to 71 of the judgment in finding that the appellants were not in a comparable situation to staff members who retained the benefit of travelling time and reimbursement of their annual travel expenses.

Thirdly, the General Court erred in law in finding, in paragraphs 67 and 78 to 84 of the judgment, that the regulations at issue do not infringe the principle of proportionality.

---
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 733 

To amend part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to exclude 

customary prompt pay discounts from manufacturers to wholesalers from 

the average sales price for drugs and biologicals under Medicare. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 5, 2011 

Mr. ROBERTS (for himself and Ms. STABENOW) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend part B of title XVIII of the Social Security 

Act to exclude customary prompt pay discounts from 

manufacturers to wholesalers from the average sales 

price for drugs and biologicals under Medicare. 

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


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 733 IS

1 SECTION 1. EXCLUDING CUSTOMARY PROMPT PAY DIS2 COUNTS FROM MANUFACTURERS TO WHOLE3 SALERS FROM THE AVERAGE SALES PRICE 

4 FOR MEDICARE PAYMENTS FOR DRUGS AND 

5 BIOLOGICALS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1847A(c)(3) of the Social 

7 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–3a(c)(3)) is amended— 

8 (1) in the first sentence, by inserting ‘‘(other 

9 than customary prompt pay discounts extended to 

10 wholesalers)’’ after ‘‘prompt pay discounts’’; and 

11 (2) in the second sentence, by inserting ‘‘(other 

12 than customary prompt pay discounts extended to 

13 wholesalers)’’ after ‘‘other price concessions’’. 

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

15 this section shall apply to drugs and biologicals that are 

16 furnished on or after January 1, 2012. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Tsakos Energy Navigation Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the
period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Nikolas P. Tsakos, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as added by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Nikolas P. TsakosNikolas P. TsakosPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: April 14, 2006
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6449

JAMES GREGORY ARMISTEAD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JENNIE BOWEN; TIMOTHY WARE; ROGER SHACKLEFORD; MOSE 

DORSEY; SETH EDWARDS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:17-ct-03281-BO)

Submitted: August 10, 2018 Decided: August 31, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James G. Armistead, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Gregory Armistead appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. See Armistead v. Bowen, No. 5:17-ct-03281-BO (E.D.N.C. 

Apr. 13, 2018). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED