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



 Exhibit 10.1 

ARS VI Investor I, LP 
 c/o Almanac
Realty Investors, LLC 
 1140 Avenue of the Americas, 17th Floor 

New York, New York 10036 
 June 8, 2018 

RAIT Financial Trust 
 Two Logan Square 

100 N. 18th Street, 23rd Floor 
 Philadelphia, PA 

Attention: Jamie Reyle 
 Dear Jamie: 

Reference is made to the Extension Agreement dated as of March 12, 2018 (the “Agreement”), by and among ARS VI Investor I, LP (the
“Investor”), on the one hand, and RAIT Financial Trust, RAIT Partnership, L.P., Taberna Realty Finance Trust and RAIT Asset Holdings IV, LLC, on the other hand. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed
to such terms in the Agreement. 
 The Investor hereby agrees to extend the Extended Effective Date Period through 3:00 p.m. (Eastern time) on Wednesday,
June 13, 2018. 
 Nothing contained herein shall be construed as a waiver of any of our rights or remedies under the Purchase Agreement, Related
Documents and applicable law, all of which are expressly reserved. 
  

					
	Sincerely,
	
	ARS VI INVESTOR I, LP
		
	By:	 	ARS VI INVESTOR I, GP, LLC, its General Partner
	By:	 	ALMANAC REALTY SECURITIES VI, L.P., its Sole Member
	By:	 	ALMANAC REALTY PARTNERS VI, LLC, its General Partner
		
	By:	 	/s/ Matthew W. Kaplan
		 	Name:	 	Matthew W. Kaplan
		 	Title:	 	President


  

					
	ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:
	
	RAIT FINANCIAL TRUST
		
	By:	 	/s/ John J. Reyle
		 	Name:	 	John J. Reyle
		 	Title:	 	Interim CEO, Interim President & General Counsel









					
	RAIT PARTNERSHIP, L.P.
		
	By:	 	RAIT General, Inc., a Maryland corporation, its General Partner
		
	By:	 	/s/ John J. Reyle
		 	Name:	 	John J. Reyle
		 	Title:	 	Interim CEO, Interim President & General Counsel
	
	TABERNA REALTY FINANCE TRUST
		
	By:	 	/s/ John J. Reyle
		 	Name:	 	John J. Reyle
		 	Title:	 	Interim CEO, Interim President & General Counsel
	
	RAIT ASSET HOLDINGS IV, LLC
		
	By:	 	RAIT Partnership, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, its sole member
		
	By:	 	RAIT General, Inc., a Maryland corporation, its General Partner
		
	By:	 	/s/ John J. Reyle
		 	Name:	 	John J. Reyle
		 	Title:	 	Interim CEO, Interim President & General Counsel


  
 2
Johnnie R. ROBERTS, petitioner, v. Darrel VANNOY, Warden.

No. 17-7259.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San An tonio, Texas July 21, 2017 No. 04 - 17 - 00436 - CR David Stuart BISHOP , Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR3325 Laura Lee Parker, Judge Presiding 

### O R D E R We order the Clerk of this court to administratively close appeal numbers 04 - 17 - 00417 - CR and 04 - 17 - 00418 - CR and to transfer the motions for extension of time to file a notice of appeal that were filed under those appeal numbers t o appeal numbers 04 - 17 - 00436 - CR and 04 - 17 - 00437

– CR.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on thi s 21st day of July, 2017 .

___________________________________ Luz Estrada Chief Deputy Clerk
Sarah E. JUNGWIRTH, petitioner, v. WEN-HSIEN H. LEE.

No. 17-7476.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until April 9, 2018, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 22

- 00326

- CV

C ITY OF A RLINGTON

, Appellant

V

.

S TACY W ESSON

- P ITTS AND B ENARD

P ITTS , Appellees §

§

§

§ O n Appeal from the 48th D is trict Court

of Tarrant County ( 048

- 330806

- 21 )

January 26, 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s order denying appellant Ci ty of Arlington ’ s ( City) plea

to the jurisdiction . It is ordered t hat the trial court’s order denying t he City ’ s plea to

the jurisdiction is affirmed.

It is further ordered that the City shall bear the costs of this appeal, for which

let execution is sue.SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dana Womack

Jus tice Dana Womack
# C_2011145EN.01002402.xml

| 14.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2011 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-33/09) (1)

1

(Non-compliance with a judgment of the Court of Justice establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Penalty payment - Claim for payment - Repeal of the legislation at issue)

2011/C 145/39

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and J.A. de Oliveira, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, P. Guerra e Andrade and P. Costa de Oliveira, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7419 final of 25 November 2008, requiring payment of the penalty payments due pursuant to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-70/06 Commission v Portugal [2008] ECR I-1

Commission

Portugal

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2008) 7419 final of 25 November 2008; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2008) 7419 final of 25 November 2008;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.

1

---
Graylin GRAY, petitioner, v. NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES.

No. 17-7363.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Nebraska denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                        <C>              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000      DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000      DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         782,334          461,288
<SECURITIES>                                         0                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,182,012          144,151
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,214,517        1,048,551
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,194,849        1,662,759
<PP&E>                                         883,742          570,595
<DEPRECIATION>                                 406,269          199,560
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,468,389        2,436,243
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,172,239        6,146,266
<BONDS>                                              0                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                0
<COMMON>                                    10,960,222        1,929,848
<OTHER-SE>                                 (14,076,051)      (5,661,665)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,468,389        2,436,243
<SALES>                                      5,006,714        1,986,839
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,006,714        1,986,839
<CGS>                                        4,295,705        1,783,747
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,324,747        3,926,484
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             2,700,000                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             217,380          495,605
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (8,414,386)      (4,208,425)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (8,414,386)      (4,208,425)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                0
<CHANGES>                                            0                0
<NET-INCOME>                                (8,414,386)      (4,208,425)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.51)           (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.51)           (0.28)




</TABLE>
Prince AWULYE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7147.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
* 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 September 8, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41877 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JORGE RAMOS-CERDA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:05-CR-718

-------------------- Before KING, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jorge Ramos-Cerda raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Wade Greely LAY, petitioner, v. Terry ROYAL, Warden.

No. 17-7685.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1771 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1771

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     December 21, 2010.
    Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a two-thirds 
vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is 
presented to the House is waived with respect to any resolution reported through 
the legislative day of December 24, 2010.
    Sec. 2.  It shall be in order at any time through the legislative day of 
December 24, 2010, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend 
the rules. The Speaker or her designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or 
his designee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this 
section.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
# C_2010288EN.01007001.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/70

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — Martin v European Police Office (Europol)

(Case F-38/09) (1)

(Staff case - Europol employees - Non-renewal of a contract - Contract of indefinite duration - Article 6 of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence)

(2010/C 288/130)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Breige Martin (Dublin, Ireland) (represented initially by P. de Casparis, lawyer, then by W. J. Dammingh and N. D. Dane, lawyers)

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, agents, and by B. Wägenbaur and R. Van der Hout, lawyers)

Re:

Annulment of the decision of 12 June 2008 informing the applicant that it was impossible to offer her a permanent post, and the decision of 7 January 2009 rejecting the complaint brought against the first decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | annuls the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the European Police Office (Europol) refused to offer to Ms Martin a contract of indefinite duration; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annuls the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the European Police Office (Europol) refused to offer to Ms Martin a contract of indefinite duration;

| 2. | orders Europol to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Europol to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 167, of 18.07.09., p 26

---
Randall Eric LEVERTON, petitioner, v. COLORADO.

No. 17-7253.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Colorado denied.
1236.

#### Heard *v.*The State.

Powell, J.

An accusation of trespass, in which the defendant is charged with passing over the lands of another after being forbidden by the owner, in violation of the Penal Code, § 220, is insufficient to withstand a timely definite special demurrer, where the only description of the lands trespassed upon is “a certain field the cultivated land of [the prosecutor] at the time being held under a contract of purchase,” though previous statements in the accusation locate the land as being in the *573county of the prosecution. In such an accusation the description of the land should be definite. *Brown*v. *State,*116 *Ga.*562 (42 S. E. 795) ; *O’Brien*v. *State,*109 *Ga.*51 (35 S. E. 112); *Johnson*v. *State,*90 *Ga. 443*(16 S. E. 92); *Wiggins*v. *State,*119 *Ga.*216 (46 S. E. 86). The point in the case of *Hardaway*v. *State,*1 *Ga. App.*150 (58 S. E. 141), is not identical with the present one,, but is -cognate.

Accusation of trespass, from city court of Jefferson — Judge-Stark. May 8, 1908.

Argued June 30,

Decided July *25,*1908.

*John B. Gamble, J. S. Ayers,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. H. Quarterman, solicitor, Shackelford & Shackelford,*contra.

*Judgment reversed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           9
       
<MULTIPLIER>        1000
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          12,890
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         390,803
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 7,940
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     35,348
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          58,191
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            58,347
<LOANS>                                        507,156
<ALLOWANCE>                                      5,425
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 617,600
<DEPOSITS>                                     479,776
<SHORT-TERM>                                    51,038
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,494
<LONG-TERM>                                     38,275
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            51
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,966
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 617,600
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 11,142
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,086
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    42
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                12,270
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,618
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,223
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,429
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      400
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  12
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,118
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,020
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,020
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       627
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.76
<LOANS-NON>                                        470
<LOANS-PAST>                                       521
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 5,193
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      176
<RECOVERIES>                                         7
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                5,425
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             5,425
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,552
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3756 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3756

To ensure that pre-apprenticeship programs are considered when planning 
   health professions opportunity grant career pathway demonstration 
                               projects.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 15, 2019

  Mr. Beyer introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To ensure that pre-apprenticeship programs are considered when planning 
   health professions opportunity grant career pathway demonstration 
                               projects.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Pre-apprenticeship Promotion Act''.

SEC. 2. PRE-APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED IN 
              PLANNING HEALTH PROFESSIONS OPPORTUNITY GRANT CAREER 
              PATHWAY DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

    Section 2008 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397g) is 
amended by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (d) and 
(e), respectively, and by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
    ``(c) Pre-Apprenticeship Programs Required To Be Considered in 
Planning Demonstration Projects.--An application for a grant for a 
demonstration project under this section shall include a certification 
by the applicant that the development of the project included 
consideration of apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship models 
registered under the Act of August 16, 1937 (also known as the 
`National Apprenticeship Act').''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on October 1, 
2019.
                                 <all>
```
**Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 May 2011 – Union Investment Privatfond v OHIM**

**(Case C-308/10 P)**

Appeal – Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 74(2) – Evidence not submitted in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose – Failure to take account thereof – Discretion of the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM – Examination by the Board of Appeal – Scope – Facts and evidence not produced in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose – Taking into account – Discretion of the Board of Appeal (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 74(2)) (see paras 42-43)

**Re:**

| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2010 in Case T‐392/06 | Union Investment Privatfonds | v | OHIM – Unicre-Cartão International De Crédito | , by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment brought by the holder of the national figurative marks UniFLEXIO, UniVARIO and UniZERO for goods and services in Classes 35 and 36 against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 October 2006 dismissing the appeal brought against the decision of the Opposition Division rejecting the appellant’s opposition to registration of the Community figurative mark unibanco for goods in Classes 36 and 38 – Misinterpretation of Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Discretion of the Board of Appeal in respect of evidence not submitted in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the appeal; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH to pay the costs. |
Stephen SATCHER, petitioner, v. David WILSON, Warden.

No. 16-9542.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 13.(a).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

     In connection with the Annual Report of CDC Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 20-F"), I, Peter Yip,
chief executive officer of the Company, certify that:

(1) The Form 20-F 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 Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: June 19, 2006


                                        /s/ Peter Yip
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Peter Yip
                                        Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to CDC Corporation and will be
retained by CDC Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1

EX-32.1 CERTIFICATION OF MICHAEL J. PECORA

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

906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Unilens Vision Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael J. Pecora, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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.

A signed original of this written statement has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.



|                                 
|---------------------------------
|Date: May 16, 2011               
|                                 
|/s/ Michael J. Pecora            
|Michael J. Pecora                
|President/Chief Executive Officer