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

 

Executive Park West II

4720 Gettysburg Road

Mechanicsburg, PA 17055

 

Second Amendment to Lease Agreement

 

This Second Amendment is made as of this 1st day of June, 2016 by and between Old Gettysburg Associates II, LP (“Landlord”), and Select Medical Corporation (“Tenant”).

 

BACKGROUND:

 

A.            Landlord and Tenant are parties to that certain Office Lease Agreement dated November 1, 2012 with an effective commencement date of January 1, 2013 thereto (the “Master Lease”), pursuant to which Landlord leased to Tenant, and Tenant leased from Landlord, approximately 28,048 rentable square feet of space known as Suites 101, 102, 103, 104, 201A, 202, 301, 303, 304 and 401 in the building located at 4720 Gettysburg Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania.  All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Master Lease.

 

B.            Landlord and Tenant entered into that certain First Amendment to Lease Agreement dated February 24, 2016 with an effective commencement date of April 1, 2016 thereto, pursuant to which Landlord leased to Tenant, and Tenant leased from Landlord, approximately 4,926 rentable square feet of space known as Suite 203 in the building located at 4720 Gettysburg Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania.  The Master Lease, as amended by such First Amendment to Lease Agreement, is sometimes hereinafter referred to as the “Lease”.

 

C.            Landlord and Tenant now desire to further amend the Lease as hereinafter set forth.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained

 











 

herein, and intending to be legally bound hereby, Landlord and Tenant agree as follows:

 

Effective July 1, 2016 the following terms contained in the Master Lease shall be amended as follows:

 

1.              Landlord and Tenant hereby agree that Tenant shall add to the Master Lease and occupy an additional 4,968 RSF of space known as Suites 403/404.

 

2.              The first month’s rent for this space will commence as of July 1, 2016 and will expire on December 31, 2022.

 

3.              The rental rate for Suites 403/404 shall be the same as the rental rate for the Master Lease.

 

4.              All of the terms and conditions of the Master Lease shall be applicable to Suites 403/404.

 

All other terms and conditions contained in the Lease and not amended hereby remain in full force and effect.

 

[Signatures on Next Page]

 











 

Landlord and Tenant have caused this Second Amendment to be duly executed.

 

 

	
 
    	
Landlord: OLD GETTYSBURG   ASSOCIATES II, LP
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By: 
    	
/s/ John M. Ortenzio
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
John M. Ortenzio, Manager   of the General Partner
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Tenant: SELECT MEDICAL CORPORATION
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By: 
    	
/s/ Michael E.   Tarvin
    
	
 
    	
Name:
    	
Michael E. Tarvin
    
	
 
    	
Title:
    	
Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 466 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage 

of an end-of-life planning consultation as part of an initial preventive 

physical examination under the Medicare program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 31, 2007 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. NELSON of Florida, and Mr. LUGAR) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

for coverage of an end-of-life planning consultation as 

part of an initial preventive physical examination under 

the Medicare program. 

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 the ‘‘Medicare End-of-Life 

5 Care Planning Act of 2007’’. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•S 466 IS

1 SEC. 2. MEDICARE COVERAGE OF AN END-OF-LIFE PLAN2 NING CONSULTATION AS PART OF AN INITIAL 

3 PREVENTIVE PHYSICAL EXAMINATION. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861(ww) of the Social 

5 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(ww)) is amended— 

6 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘paragraph 

7 (2),’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph (2) and an end-of8 life planning consultation (as defined in paragraph 

9 (3)),’’; and 

10 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

11 paragraph: 

12 ‘‘(3) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term ‘end13 of-life planning consultation’ means a consultation be14 tween the physician and an individual regarding— 

15 ‘‘(A) the importance of preparing advance di16 rectives in case an injury or illness causes the indi17 vidual to be unable to make health care decisions; 

18 ‘‘(B) the situations in which an advance direc19 tive is likely to be relied upon; 

20 ‘‘(C) the reasons why the development of a 

21 comprehensive end-of-life plan is beneficial and the 

22 reasons why such a plan should be updated periodi23 cally as the health of the individual changes; 

24 ‘‘(D) the identification of resources that an in25 dividual may use to determine the requirements of 

26 the State in which such individual resides so that 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
3 

•S 466 IS

1 the treatment wishes of that individual will be car2 ried out if the individual is unable to communicate 

3 those wishes, including requirements regarding the 

4 designation of a surrogate decision maker (health 

5 care proxy); and 

6 ‘‘(E) whether or not the physician is willing to 

7 follow the individual’s wishes as expressed in an ad8 vance directive.’’. 

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

10 this section shall apply to initial preventive physical exami11 nations provided on or after January 1, 2008. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
FINK v. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.

No. COA07-1371.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 2, 2008.

Certification Date December 22, 2008.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. NO. 344463).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2021398DE.01005401.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 11.11.2021 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 398/54 |

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 168/2013 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 15. Januar 2013 über die Genehmigung und Marktüberwachung von zwei- oder dreirädrigen und vierrädrigen Fahrzeugen

(
[Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 60 vom 2. März 2013](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2013_060_R_TOC)
)

Seite 94, Anhang I „Fahrzeugeinstufung“, Reihe Unterklasse L1e-A, Spalte 3 „Zusätzliche Kriterien für die Einstufung hinsichtlich der Unterklasse“ Nummer 10

Anstatt:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „(10) | die Leistung des Hilfsantriebs wird beim Erreichen einer Fahrzeuggeschwindigkeit von 25 km/h unterbrochen und“ |

muss es heißen:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „(10) | die Leistung des Hilfsantriebs wird beim Erreichen einer Fahrzeuggeschwindigkeit von ≤ 25 km/h unterbrochen und“. |

---
BAILEY v. WINSTON-SALEM STATE.

No. 549P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

John P. Scherer, II, Assistant Attorney General, for Winston-Salem State University.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th day of December 2008 by Plaintiff for Review of the Opinion of the Court of Appeals:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of February 2009."
BERRY v. NC DEPT. OF CORRECTION.

No. 349P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

James Peeler Smith, Special Counsel, for NC Dept. of Correction.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th day of July 2008 by Plaintiff for Motion of Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 26th day of August 2008."
#### Vincent LoGuidici et al., Respondents, v Long Island Power Authority et al., Appellants, and Village of Lynbrook, Respondent.

[800 NYS2d 507]

*454In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Long Island Power Authority and Keyspan Corp., doing business as Keyspan Energy, appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Skelos, J.), dated April 21, 2004, as, upon renewal, adhered to a prior determination of the same court (Burke, J.), dated April 25, 2003, denying their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for the injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff Vincent LoGiudici on July 12, 1999, when he touched two signposts at the intersection of Sunrise Highway and Denton Avenue in Village of Lynbrook which became electrified after one of the signposts pierced an underground wire.

Upon renewal, the Supreme Court properly adhered to its prior determination denying the cross motion of the defendants Long Island Power Authority and Keyspan Corp., doing business as Keyspan Energy (hereinafter the appellants), for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them since they failed to meet their prima facie burden of proving that they could not be held liable for any negligence arising from the installation of the subject underground wire (see *Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851 [1985]; *see generally Adler v Suffolk County Water Auth.,*306 AD2d 229 [2003]).

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Florio, Cozier and Lifson, JJ., concur.
# CE2004088EN.01032801.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/328 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/328

---

(2004/C 88 E/0333)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0610/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(3 March 2003)

Subject:   EU/São Tomé and Príncipe 1999-2003: cooperation, development, human rights, assistance, etc.

Subject:

For the years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 and with regard to São Tomé and Príncipe, can the Commission provide information on the following: What programmes have been or are being undertaken by the EU with São Tomé and Príncipe? What are the funds allocated? What is the expected duration of the individual programmes? What results have been obtained by the programmes, and what assessment has been made of their success or otherwise? What particular developments have characterised each of the programmes?

---
##### 



Exhibit 10.47
 EXECUTIVE
SEVERANCE AND CHANGE IN CONTROL BENEFITS AGREEMENT
 This Executive Severance and Change in Control Benefits Agreement Agreement 30 th Deanne
M. Tully (Executive) Tier Technologies, Inc. Company
  ARTICLE 1
 Scope of and Consideration for this Agreement
 1.1
 1.2
 1.3
 1.4
 ARTICLE 2
 Benefits
 2.1 Benefits.
 2.2 Payment.
 2.3 Health Benefits
 1.




---



##### 



provided, however,
 2.4 Mitigation.
 ARTICLE 3
 Limitations And Conditions On Benefits
 3.1 Release Prior To Payment Of Benefits.
 3.2 Termination of Companys Obligations.
 3.3 Non-Duplication of Benefits.
 2.




---



##### 



ARTICLE 4
 Definitions
  4.1 Base Salary
 4.2 Board
 4.3 Cause
 (a)
 (b)
 (c)
 (d)
 (e)
 (f)
 4.4 Change in Control
 (a)
 (b)
 (c)
 3.




---



##### 



(d)
 4.5 Company Tier Technologies, Inc.
 4.6 Covered Event
 4.7 Involuntary Termination Without Cause
 ARTICLE 5
 General Provisions
 5.1 Employment Status; Employment Agreement Superceded.
 5.2 Notices.
 5.3 Severability.
 4.




---



##### 



5.4 Waiver.
 5.5 Arbitration. provided, however,
 5.6 Complete Agreement.
 5.7 Amendment Or Termination Of Agreement.
 5.8 Counterparts.
 5.




---



##### 



5.9 Headings.
 5.10 Successors And Assigns. provided, however,
 5.11 Choice Of Law.
 5.12 Non-Publication. e.g.
 5.13 Construction Of Agreement.
 In Witness Whereof,
 Tier Technologies, Inc.
    
    
    
    Deanne M. TullyBy:Name:Title:
 
 6.




---



##### 



Exhibit A
 RELEASE
   A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or
suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have
materially affected his settlement with the debtor.
 provided, however,




---



##### 



Deanne M. TullyDate:
 2.




---



##### 



Exhibit B
 Proprietary Information & Inventions Agreement
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43909

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

SHANE RYAN STEVENS,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 592

Filed: July 6, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Deborah A. Bail, District Judge. 

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. 

Allred, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Shane Ryan Stevens pled guilty to arson in the third degree. Idaho Code § 18-804. The 

district court sentenced Stevens to a unified term of six years with two years determinate, 

suspended the sentence, and placed Stevens on supervised probation for a period of six years. 

After Stevens violated his probation, the district court revoked probation, ordered the underlying 

sentence executed, and retained jurisdiction. Following the period of retained jurisdiction, the 

district court again suspended Stevens’ sentence and placed him on supervised probation for six 

years. Stevens violated his probation a second time and the district court revoked his probation, 

ordered the underlying sentence executed, and again retained jurisdiction. Following the second 

period of retained jurisdiction, the district court suspended Stevens’ sentence and placed him on 
2

supervised probation of a period of six years. Subsequently, Stevens violated his probation a 

third time and the district court revoked his probation and ordered the underlying sentence 

executed. Stevens filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for a reduction of sentence, which the 

district court denied. Stevens appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by 

denying his Rule 35 motion.

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, 

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In 

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of 

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the 

motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the 

record, including any new information submitted with Stevens’ Rule 35 motion, we conclude no 

abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Stevens’

Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
STATE v. PAYNE.

No. COA08-563.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 2, 2008.

Certification Date December 22, 2008.

Appeal from Henderson (07CRS52537).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
EXHIBIT 32.2



Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b)

of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



I, Lauren P. Silvernail, hereby certify pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that the
Quarterly Report of ISTA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of ISTA Pharmaceuticals, Inc.



|                       |  |  |  |                                                
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------
|                       |  | 
|Date: November 9, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Lauren P. Silvernail                       
|                       |  |  |  | Lauren P. Silvernail                           
|                       |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting      
|                       |  |  |  | Officer & Vice President, Corporate Development
# CE2004078EN.01071902.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/719 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/719

---

(2004/C 78 E/0768)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1587/03

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject:   Basic nuclear safety standards

Subject:

Will the Commission set out the means by which it is able to guarantee that the Basic Safety Standards on radiological protection are respected concerning the La Hague and Sellafield facilities?

---
lacey.htm


EXHIBIT 10.4






 


AMENDMENT NO. 4


TO


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT







This Amendment No. 4 (the “Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement, dated August 15, 2003, as amended on June 30, 2005, December 22, 2008, and September 2009 (the “Employment Agreement”), by and between Walco International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and William F. Lacey (the “Executive”) is entered into as of the 11th day of November, 2010 (“Effective Date”).







WHEREAS the Company and the Executive desire to amend certain terms of the Employment Agreement as set forth herein;







NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:







1.           Capitalized Terms.  All capitalized terms used, but not defined herein, shall have the same meaning as prescribed in the Employment Agreement.







2.           Termination following Change of Control Occurring Prior to January 1, 2012.  In the event (i) of a Change of Control prior to January 1, 2012, and (ii) within the two (2) years following such Change of Control, the Executive’s employment terminates pursuant to either Section 5.4 or 5.5 of the Agreement; then the Separation Pay Period or payment period specified in Section 5.5 (as applicable) shall be increased to include an additional six (6) months.







3.           Entire Agreement.  This Amendment constitutes the sole and entire agreement of the parties with respect to the fourth amendment of the Agreement; and may not be modified except in a writing signed by both parties. In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the Agreement, the terms of this Amendment shall be controlling.  All other terms and conditions of the Agreement are hereby ratified and shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the Effective Date.


 




	 EXECUTIVE       	 	  WALCO INTERNATIONAL, INC.
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ William F. Lacey	 	 By:	 /s/ James C. Robison
	William F. Lacey	 	 Name:  	 James C. Robison
	 	 	 Title:	 President and C.E.O.
# C_2023189EN.01001401.xml

| 30.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 22 February 2023 — A GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt B

(Case C-104/23, A GmbH & Co. KG)

(2023/C 189/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: A GmbH & Co. KG

Respondent on a point of law: Hauptzollamt B

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Combined Nomenclature (1) heading 9406 necessarily require that a prefabricated building completely enclose a space on all sides? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Combined Nomenclature (1) heading 9406 necessarily require that a prefabricated building completely enclose a space on all sides?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the negative, does Combined Nomenclature heading 9406 require that the prefabricated building be large enough for a person of average height to be able to enter it, and does that require it to have at least one area that such a person can enter in an upright position, or is it sufficient for the person to be able to enter it in a bent-over position? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative, does Combined Nomenclature heading 9406 require that the prefabricated building be large enough for a person of average height to be able to enter it, and does that require it to have at least one area that such a person can enter in an upright position, or is it sufficient for the person to be able to enter it in a bent-over position?

---

(1)  Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1101/2014 of 16 October 2014 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2014 L 312, p. 1).

---
# The General Register Office (Fees) Order (Northern Ireland) 2014 (revoked)

        - Previous
        - Next

N.I.

Statutory Rules of Northern Ireland

# 2014 No. 71

Registration Of Vital Events

# The General Register Office (Fees) Order (Northern Ireland) 2014 (revoked)F1

Made

6th March 2014

Coming into operation

31st March 2014

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

F1Order revoked (4.4.2016) by The General Register Office (Fees) Order (Northern Ireland) 2016 (S.R. 2016/205), arts. 1(1), **3**
**EXHIBIT      32 **

**CERTIFICATIONS**

|                              |                                               |                                   |
|-----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                         |                                          |                              |
| Date:                May 14, 2007 | By:                                      | /s/ Leonard                Armato |
|                              | Leonard                Armato,                     |
|                              | Chief                Executive Officer             |
|                              | (Principal                Executive Officer)  |

|         |                                                                                        |                                              |
|--------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|    |                                                                                   |                                         |
|         | By:                                                                               | /s/ William                Chardavoyne  |
|         | William                Chardavoyne,                                                         |
|         | Interim                Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial                Officer) |