alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10-22.htm


Exhibit 10.22

 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO 

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

This First Amendment to Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of February 19, 2016 (the “Amendment Date”), by and between Senomyx, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Catherine C. Lee (the “Employee”).

 

Recitals:

 

A.     The Employee and the Company entered into that certain Employment Agreement effective as of May 28, 2014 (the “Employment Agreement”). Terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein have the same meaning given in the Original Agreement.

 

B.     The Company and Employee wish to amend the Original Agreement as set forth below.

 

Agreement:

 

Now, Therefore, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Employee and the Company agree as follows effective as of the Amendment Date:

 

1.     Section 3.2 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended and restated to read in its entirety as follows:

 

“Bonus. In addition to your base salary, you will be eligible to receive an annual discretionary bonus as determined by the Board. The target bonus payout will be equal to forty percent (40%) of your then current base salary based upon your performance against specific milestones to be defined by the Company.”

 

2.     Choice of Law. This Amendment is made and entered into in San Diego, California, and it shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California as applied to agreements among California residents entered into and to be performed entirely within California. 

 

3.     Effect of Amendment. The Company and Employee hereby agree that all other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect except as modified by this Amendment.

 

4.     Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts and signatures delivered by facsimile, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one instrument.

 


 

1. 




 


 

In Witness Whereof, the Parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.

 

	
“Company”
	 	Senomyx, Inc.	
 

	
 
	
 
	
a Delaware corporation
	
 

	 	 	 	 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
By: 
	
/s/ John Poyhonen
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
John Poyhonen, President and CEO
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	“Employee” 	 	/s/ Catherine C. Lee	 
	 	 	Catherine C. Lee	 


 

 

 

[First Amendment to Employment Agreement]
**SECOND
      AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**




**Brad
      Edson**




This
      Second Amendment to Employment Agreement (the “ **Amendment** ”)
      by and
      between NutraCea, a California corporation (the “ **Employer** ”)
      and
      Brad Edson (the “ **Employee** ’),
      entered into as of the 10 th day of
      December, 2004 (the “ **Agreement** ”),
      is
      made and effective as of the 8th day of August, 2008. Capitalized terms not
      specifically defined hereunder shall have the meanings assigned to them under
      the Agreement.




**1.**  **Background
      and Purpose** **.** **** Employer
      has agreed in the Employment Agreements for certain of its officers that such
      officers are eligible for discretionary bonus awards as determined by the
      NutraCea Compensation Committee or Board of Directors. Pursuant
      to the Agreement, Employee is entitled to participate
      in all benefit plans and programs made available to other executives or senior
      management of Employer. Employer acknowledges that Employee is and has been
      eligible for discretionary
      bonus awards as determined by the NutraCea Compensation Committee or Board
      of
      Directors. The parties desire to amend the Agreement to clarify the
      foregoing.




**2.**  **Discretionary
      Bonus** **.**  Section
      3.4 of the Agreement is hereby adopted to read in its entirety as
      follows:




“ **3.4.** **Discretionary
      Bonus** **.** Employee
      shall be eligible for a discretionary bonus at such times and in such amounts
      as
      determined by Employer’s Compensation Committee or Board of
      Directors.




**3.** **Effect
      of Amendment** **.** All
      other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain unchanged and shall continue
      in full force and effect, except as may be required to effect the forgoing
      amendment.




EMPLOYER:
            
            EMPLOYEE:NutraCea
            
            /s/
                Brad
                EdsonBrad
                EdsonBy
            /s/
                David BensolIts:
            Chairman
                of the Board
#### § 50.13 Disinfection of premises, conveyances, and materials.

All premises, including all structures, holding facilities, conveyances, or materials which are determined by the appropriate Veterinarian in Charge to constitute a health hazard to humans or animals because of tuberculosis shall be properly cleaned and disinfected, in accordance with procedures approved by the Department, within 15 days after the removal of tuberculosis infected or exposed livestock except that the Veterinarian in Charge, for reasons satisfactory to him, may extend the time limit for disinfection to 30 days when request for such extension is received by him prior to the expiration date of the original 15-day period allowed.

[40 FR 27009, June 26, 1975, as amended at 52 FR 39614, Oct. 23, 1987; 60 FR 37809, July 24, 1995; 67 FR 7592, Feb. 20, 2002]
#### § 25.11 Photographs for news, advertising, or commercial purposes.

Photographs may be taken in the GAO Building only with the approval or authorization of the Comptroller General or his designee.
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

 

**Consent of Independent Auditors**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements (Form S-3 Nos. 333-33132, 333-80363, 333-07577) of CROWN FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., formerly M.H. MEYERSON & CO., INC., and in the related Prospectus and in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-53410, 333-83371) pertaining tothe Stock Option Plans of CROWN FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., formerly M.H. MEYERSON & CO., INC., of our report dated March 9, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of CROWN FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., formerly M.H. MEYERSON & CO.,INC., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 31, 2004. 

 

*/s/    Sanville & Company*

 

 

*Abington, Pennsylvania*

*April 30, 2004*
# C_2010209EN.01005402.xml

| 31.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/54

---

Action brought on 27 May 2010 — Rapone v Commission

(Case F-36/10)

()

2010/C 209/85

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Chiara Rapone (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Rapone, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision by which EPSO refused to register the applicant’s application to participate in competition EPSO/AD/177/10-LAW.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision refusing registration of the applicant’s new application to participate in competition EPSO/AD/177/10-LAW, which was confirmed in a communication from EPSO of 12 April 2010. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision refusing registration of the applicant’s new application to participate in competition EPSO/AD/177/10-LAW, which was confirmed in a communication from EPSO of 12 April 2010.

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                             337
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,366
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (50)
<INVENTORY>                                      5,691
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,588
<PP&E>                                           5,465
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,522)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,702
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,364
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,642
<OTHER-SE>                                          22
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,702
<SALES>                                         39,069
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,069
<CGS>                                           31,131
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,262
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   890
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 146
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,360)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,112)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,248)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.48)
        


</TABLE>
# C_2012133EN.01002303.xml

| 5.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 133/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 March 2012 — Barilla v OHIM — Brauerei Schlösser (ALIXIR)

(Case T-157/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the Community word mark ALIXIR - Earlier national word mark Elixeer - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 133/45

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Barilla G. e R. Fratelli SpA (Parma, Italy) (represented by: A. Vanzetti, G. Sironi and A. Colmano, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Pethke, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Brauerei Schlösser GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J. Flick, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 January 2010 (case R 820/2009-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Brauerei Schlösser GmbH and Barilla G. e R. Fratelli SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Barilla G. e R. Fratelli SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Barilla G. e R. Fratelli SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.

1

---
#### Joseph Lessler, Appellant, v. John McQuade, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred. ... ^
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF REGISTERED INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**

 

As registered independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report, dated February 9, 2005,included in this Form 10-K, into the Company’s previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-12411, 333-93201, 333-72648, 333-85246, 333-108167 and 333-114304) and Registration Statements on Form S-2 (File Nos. 333-36798,333-46988, 333-77014, 333-106033 and 333-121915). 

 

 

/s/    VITALE, CATURANO & COMPANY, LTD. 

 

 

Boston, Massachusetts

March 30, 2005
#### Bankers’ Money Order Association v. Friedrich Nachod and Others.

Motion denied on condition that appellants have appeal ready for March term.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporationby reference in Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-12411, 333-93201, 333-72648, 333-85246, 333-108167, 333-114304, 333-135972, 333-143980, 333-150202, 333-150203, 333-160041 and 333-165410) and in Registration Statements on Form S-3(File Nos. 333-143091, 333-121915 and 333-106033) of our report dated March 22, 2011, relating to our audit of the financial statements of Cambridge Heart, Inc., which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cambridge Heart, Inc. for the yearended December 31, 2010. 

/s/    McGladrey and Pullen, LLP 

Boston, Massachusetts 

March 22, 2011
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Rios, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 344]

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J.), rendered December 9, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of violation of probation, and resentencing him to a term of three years to life, unanimously affirmed.

In 1996, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and was sentenced to lifetime probation. In 2004, following his arrest and conviction in Richmond County on an unrelated case, he was convicted of violating his probation and was resentenced as indicated. Defendant’s argument for a sentence reduction under the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738) is without merit *(People v Utsey,*7 NY3d 398 [2006]). Concur—Buckley, EJ., Tom, Mazzarelli, Saxe and McGuire, JJ.
Exhibit 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
SOLECTRON CORPORATION:

We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in the  registration  statements
(Nos.  333-69443,   333-75865,   333-85949,   333-89035,  333-75813,  333-24293,
333-02523,  333-17643,  33-58580,  33-46686, 33-57575, 33-75270 and 33-33461) on
Forms S-3, S-4 and S-8 of Solectron  Corporation  of our report dated  September
13, 1999, relating to the consolidated  balance sheets of Solectron  Corporation
and  subsidiaries  as of August 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related  consolidated
statements of income,  stockholders' equity, comprehensive income and cash flows
for each of the years in the  three-year  period ended August 31, 1999,  and the
related  financial  statement  schedule,  which report appears in the August 31,
1999, annual report on Form 10-K of Solectron Corporation.



                                                        KPMG LLP


Mountain View, California
November 18, 1999
Exhibit 32.1





Certifications Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Power3 Medical Products, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “report”), I, Helen R. Park, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to 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.




Dated:  May 16, 2011
/s/ Helen R. ParkHelen R. Park

Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer
#### § 118.1 Administrative detention.

Whenever any biological product which is prepared, sold, bartered, exchanged, or shipped in violation of the Act or regulations is found by any authorized representative of the Administrator upon any premises, it may be detained by such representative for a period not to exceed 20 days, pending action under § 118.4, and shall not be moved by any person from the place at which it is located when so detained, until released by such representative.

[52 FR 30135, Aug. 13, 1987, as amended at 56 FR 66784, Dec. 26, 1991]
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of catalogingand locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Microgravityscience and applications: program tasks and bibliography**** 
SuDocNumber:NAS1.15:
ItemNumber:0830-D
CGPSystem Number:000432821
 
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
 
 
 **
STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Seeks Applications for Placemaking Grants to Spur Economic Growth and 

Community Development in Rural America 

WASHINGTON, May 27, 2021 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) today announced it is 

accepting applications for eligible entities to provide planning, training and technical assistance to rural 

communities to foster placemaking activities. 

USDA is making up to $3 million in cooperative agreement grants available under the Rural Placemaking 

Innovation Challenge (RPIC). Eligible entities may use the funds to help rural communities create plans to 

enhance capacity for broadband access; preserve cultural and historic structures; and support development in 

transportation, housing, and recreational spaces.

The technical assistance will support the development of actionable plans based on convening partners and

identifying community needs that enable rural areas to build back better and stronger. The technical assistance 

must provide support to rural communities for up to two years.

Public or private groups, organizations or institutions that demonstrate experience in providing placemaking 

technical assistance and administering federal grants are eligible to apply. 

USDA seeks to partner with at least one entity each located in the northeastern, southern, midwestern and 

western regions of the United States. The maximum award for any one applicant is $250,000. Applicants must 

provide a funding match of 15 percent.

USDA encourages applications that support communities designated as economically distressed and/or planning 

projects that enhance capacity for broadband infrastructure and deployment, including investments under the

USDA ReConnect program.

Electronic applications must be submitted via grants.gov by July 26, 2021, at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time. For 

more information, contact: RD.RPIC@usda.gov or visit page 28526 of the May 27 Federal Register.

Interested parties are encouraged to attend a virtual workshop to learn more about this program on Thursday, 

June 24, 2021, at 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time. To register, visit:

https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/6167023696195529742.

If you’d like to subscribe to USDA Rural Development updates, visit our GovDelivery subscriber page.

###

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU LY 24, 2014

NO. 03

- 14

- 00219

- CV

Janet Denise Stuckey, Appellant

v.

John Stuckey, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PE MBERTON, AND FIELD

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on October 2, 2013. Having

reviewed the rec ord , the Court holds that appellant has not prosecuted her appeal and did not

comply with a notice from the Clerk of this Court. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for

want of prosecution. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court

and the court below.
### **CHAPTER 93—INSURANCE**

Sec.
6701.
Operation of State law.

#### SUBCHAPTER I—STATE REGULATION OF INSURANCE

6711.
Functional regulation of insurance.
6712.
Insurance underwriting in national banks.
6713.
Title insurance activities of national banks and their affiliates.
6714.
Expedited and equalized dispute resolution for Federal regulators.
6715.
Certain State affiliation laws preempted for insurance companies and affiliates.
6716.
Interagency consultation.
6717.
Definition of State.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—REDOMESTICATION OF MUTUAL INSURERS

6731.
General application.
6732.
Redomestication of mutual insurers.
6733.
Effect on State laws restricting redomestication.
6734.
Other provisions.
6735.
Definitions.

#### SUBCHAPTER III—NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGISTERED AGENTS AND BROKERS

6751.
National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers.
6752.
Purpose.
6753.
Membership.
6754.
Board of directors.
6755.
Bylaws, standards, and disciplinary actions.
6756.
Powers.
6757.
Report by the Association.
6758.
Liability of the Association and the Board members, officers, and employees of the Association.
6759.
Presidential oversight.
6760.
Relationship to State law.
6761.
Coordination with Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.
6762.
Right of action.
6763.
Federal funding prohibited.
6764.
Definitions.

#### SUBCHAPTER IV—RENTAL CAR AGENCY INSURANCE ACTIVITIES

6781.
Standard of regulation for motor vehicle rentals.
# C_2014431EN.01001902.xml

| 1.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/19

---

Order of the General Court of 16 September 2014 — Justice & Environment v Commission

(Case T-405/10) (1)

1

((Approximation of laws - Deliberate release into the environment of GMOs - Marketing authorisation procedure - Request for internal review - Annulment of the contested decisions or the decisions concerned - Action devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))

(2014/C 431/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Association/Vereniging Justice & Environment (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Černý, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by P. Olivier and D. Bianchi, and subsequently by D. Bianchi)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/135/EU of 2 March 2010 concerning the placing on the market, in accordance with Directive 200l/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of a potato product (Solanum tuberosum L. line EH92-527-1) genetically modified for enhanced content of the amylopectin component of starch (OJ 2010 L 53, p. 11) and of Commission Decision 2010/136/EU of 2 March 2010 authorising the placing on the market of feed produced from the genetically modified potato EH92-527-1 (BPS-25271-9) and the adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of the potato in food and other feed products under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2010 L 53, p. 15), and of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 6 July 2010 rejecting the request for an internal review of those decisions.

(Solanum tuberosum

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Commission is to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Association/Vereniging Justice & Environment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission is to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Association/Vereniging Justice & Environment.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.

1

---