alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 10.9


               AMENDMENT #4 TO CONSULTING AND TECHNOLOGY AGREEMENT

                             RICHARD JONATHAN COHEN

                                       And

                              CAMBRIDGE HEART, INC.

The Consulting and Technology Agreement ("Agreement") originally dated February
8, 1993 and amended May 26, 1998, June 1, 2000 and Jan 1, 2002 is amended
effective Jan 1, 2003:

1) The term is extended to December 31, 2003 and is automatically renewed year
to year unless either party gives notice to the other party of their desire not
to renew with a minimum of 45 days notice.

2) Effective Jan 1, 2003 the monthly retainer is reduced to $7,500 per month.

3) COHEN is hereby granted a restricted stock award of 100,000 shares of
Cambridge Heart, Inc. common stock. THIS AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON SHAREHOLDER
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2001 STOCK OPTION PLAN INCREASING THE NUMBER OF
SHARES AVAILABLE. If the shareholders do not approve such amendment then
Cambridge Heart will increase the monthly retainer to $15,000 for the final 6
months of 2003. The award will vest in its entirety Jan 1, 2004 so long as this
consulting agreement remains in effect through the term mentioned above in
section 1.

4) Both parties agree to meet and discuss renewal terms not less than 60 days
prior to the end of the term.

Terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in
the Agreement.

All of the other terms of the Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed.

This agreement is not effective until ratified by the Board of Directors of
Cambridge Heart, Inc.

RICHARD J. COHEN                            CAMBRIDGE HEART, INC.

By: /s/ Richard J. Cohen                    By: /s/ David A. Chazanovitz
    --------------------                        ------------------------

Date: January 28, 2003                      Date: January 28, 2003
      ----------------                            ----------------
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 report of Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period
ended December 31, 2008 (the "Report"), I, Samuel S. Lee, 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, to my knowledge:



|                  |  |                                                        
|----------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------
|February 17, 2009 |  | /s/ SAMUEL S. LEE Samuel S. Lee
Chief Executive Officer

---



QuickLinks
| | Subsidiaries of the Company | Exhibit 8.1
| | --------------------------- | -----------













|Subsidiary                                                                                 | Jurisdiction of Incorporation | Principal Activity                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------------- | ------------------------------------------
|                                                                                           |                               |                                           
|BBVA Francés Asset Management S.A.
        Sociedad Gerente de Fondos Comunes de Inversión | Republic of Argentina         | Mutual funds                              
|BBVA Francés Valores S.A.                                                                  | Republic of Argentina         | Stock exchange brokerage                  
|Consolidar AFJP S.A. (undergoing
        liquidation proceedings)                          | Republic of Argentina         | Pension and Retirement Fund Administrators
|PSA Finance Argentina Compañía
        Financiera S.A.                                     | Republic of Argentina         | Financial Institution
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule Contains Summary Financial Information Extracted From Financial
Statements as of and for the Nine Months Ended September 30, 1999
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,180
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,403
<ALLOWANCES>                                       730
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,294
<PP&E>                                         207,317
<DEPRECIATION>                                  41,636
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 206,498
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,647
<BONDS>                                        152,703
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           39,955
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (19,935)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   206,498
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               157,572
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  122,305
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,560
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,707
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,712)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,712)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,172)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
ex10-20.htm


Exhibit 10.20

 

DIRECTOR FEE SUMMARY

 

Set forth below is a summary of the current director fee arrangements for non-employee directors serving on the Boards of Directors of Mercantile Bank Corporation (“Mercantile”) and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Mercantile Bank of Michigan (“Bank”). 

 

The directors' annual retainer fee is paid in the form of stock rather than in cash. The annual retainer fee is a number of shares of our common stock equivalent to an annual fee of approximately $15,000. An annual retainer fee is also paid to each director who serves as Chairman of our Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Governance and Nominating Committee. The annual retainer is a number of shares of our common stock equivalent to an annual approximate fee as follows:

 

	
Committee
	  	
Annual Retainer

	  	  	  
	
Audit
	  	
$7,000

	
Compensation
	  	
$5,000

	
Governance and Nominating
	  	
$3,000



  

Our non-employee directors are paid a fee of $800 for each meeting of the Board of Directors that they attend, and $750 for each meeting of the Bank's Board of Directors that they attend. In addition, non-employee directors are paid a meeting fee of $700 for each meeting of the Executive Committee, $700 for each meeting of the Audit Committee and $600 for each meeting of the Compensation Committee and the Governance and Nominating Committee that they attend. For meetings that were held by telephone or other remote communications equipment, the meeting fees were one-half the amount described above. The director who serves as Facilitator for executive sessions of our Board of Directors receives a meeting fee of $400 for each executive session of the Board for which the director serves as Facilitator. 

 

Under the Bank’s deferred compensation plan for non-employee directors, directors who are also directors of the Bank may elect to defer the receipt of the annual retainer and meeting fees until they are no longer serving on the Board or until specific dates that they select. Directors are eligible to receive stock-based awards under the Stock Incentive Plan of 2006.
#### § 77.18 Other movements.

The Administrator may, with the concurrence of the State animal health official of the State of destination, upon request in specific cases, allow the interstate movement of cattle or bison not otherwise provided for in this part that have not been classified as reactor cattle or bison and are not otherwise known to be affected with tuberculosis, under such conditions as the Administrator may prescribe in each specific case to prevent the spread of tuberculosis. The Administrator shall promptly notify the appropriate State animal health official of the State of destination of any such action.
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted February 11, 2009 ∗

Decided February 24, 2009



### Before

F RANK H. E ASTERBROOK

, Chief Judge

D ANIEL A. M ANION

, Circuit Judge

A NN C LAIRE W ILLIAM S

, Circuit Judge



### No

. 08

- 3302

U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA

, Plaintiff

- Appellee

,

v.

J AMES W. H ARPER

, Defendant

- Appellant

. Appeal from the United

States District Court for the

Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 05

- CR

- 138

- C

- 01
Barbara B. Crabb,

Chi ef Judge

.

Order

James Har per was sentenced to 204 months’ imprisonment for crack

- cocaine offenses. Last year we remanded so that the district court could consider how to use the discretion it possesses under Kimbrough v. United States , 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007). On remand the judge reduced Harper’ s sentence to 188 months. He has appealed a second time, but his lawyer proposes to withdraw, concluding after an analysis under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 264 (1967), that there is no non

- frivolous issue for appeal. Harper was

∗ This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R.
App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 08

- 3302 Page 2

invited to respond, see Circuit Rule 51, but has not done so.

We agree with counsel that an appeal would be frivolous. Kimbrough holds that district judges possess discretion to reduce sentences for crack cocaine, but that decision

and its successors, such as Spears v. United States , No. 08

- 5721 (U.S. Jan. 21, 2009), do not require the judge to grant any, or any particular, reduction. We do not see any reason to think that the district judge misunderstood the extent of her discretion af ter Kimbrough when reducing this sentence by 16 months rather than some different amount, or that the judge took any inappropriate matter into account. The judge gave Harper the benefit of the lower Guideline for crack cocaine recently established by the

S entencing Commission. The sentence, which is at the low end of the range determined

under the amended crack

- cocaine Guideline, is reasonable.

Any other potential argument was raised and rejected in our prior decision.

We grant counsel’ s motion to withd raw and dismiss the appeal as frivolous.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Diane Knudsen, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 530]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.), rendered November 29, 2004, convicting her of robbery in the first degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Honoroff, J.), of those *497branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress her statements to law enforcement officials and physical evidence seized at her residence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that her inculpatory statements to law enforcement officials and her written consent to the search of her residence were involuntary. The defendant was advised of, and waived, her *Miranda*rights (see *Miranda v Arizona,*384 US 436 [1966]) and signed a form indicating as much. In addition, the defendant signed a consent form permitting the police to search her home. The totality of the circumstances surrounding the questioning, as established at the pretrial hearing (see *People v Anderson,*42 NY2d 35, 38 [1977]), supports the hearing court’s conclusion that the defendant’s written statements admitting to the crimes, as well as the signed consent to the search of her residence, were voluntarily made. There was no evidence that the defendant’s statements were obtained through threats or coercion (see *People v Tarsia,*67 AD2d 210 [1979], *affd*50 NY2d 1 [1980]; see *also People v Miles,*276 AD2d 566 [2000]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, she was not denied her right to receive meaningful notice of a substantive juror inquiry (see CPL 310.30). The defense attorney and the prosecutor expressly agreed that the jury could be given any requested evidence without the necessity of appearance by counsel. In response to a request from the jury, the trial court properly provided the requested exhibits without consultation with the parties (see *People v Porteous,*193 AD2d 631 [1993]). Further, when the jury requested an item that had not been submitted into evidence, the trial court also acted appropriately when it informed the jury of this fact without notifying the parties (see *People v Porteous, supra).*

The prosecutorial misconduct alleged by the defendant constitutes harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

Although the defendant was permitted to impeach a witness’s credibility by trying to show that the witness was hostile towards her, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in limiting the defendant’s cross-examination of the witness to prevent further interrogation that was merely harassing *(see e.g. People v Ashner,*190 AD2d 238, 245 [1993]). Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.
# C_2011173EN.01001102.xml

| 11.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/11

---

Order of the General Court of 11 April 2011 — Département du Gers v Commission

(Case T-481/10) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Environment and protection of human health - Genetically modified food and feed - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)

2011/C 173/26

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Département du Gers (France) (represented by: S. Mabile and J.-P Mignard, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and L. Pignataro, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/429/EU of 28 July 2010 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize MON 88017 x MON 810 (MON-88Ø17-3 x MON-ØØ81Ø-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2010 L 201, p. 46).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 2. | The Département du Gers is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those of the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Département du Gers is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those of the European Commission;

| 3. | There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the Centre Region, the Picardy Region, the Départment de la Haute–Garonne, the Brittany Region, the Poitou-Charentes Region, the Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur Region, the Burgundy Region, the Midi-Pyrénées Region, the Auvergne Region, the Pays de la Loire Region, the Rhône-Alpes Region, the Départment des Côtes d'Armor, the Île de France Region and the Nord-Pas-de-Calais Region. |
| --- | --- |

3.

There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the Centre Region, the Picardy Region, the Départment de la Haute–Garonne, the Brittany Region, the Poitou-Charentes Region, the Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur Region, the Burgundy Region, the Midi-Pyrénées Region, the Auvergne Region, the Pays de la Loire Region, the Rhône-Alpes Region, the Départment des Côtes d'Armor, the Île de France Region and the Nord-Pas-de-Calais Region.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.

1

---
§ 292.301 Scope. ( a ) *Applicability.* This subpart applies to the regulation of sales and purchases between qualifying facilities and electric utilities.
( b ) *Negotiated rates or terms.* Nothing in this subpart: ( 1 ) Limits the authority of any electric utility or any qualifying facility to agree to a rate for any purchase, or terms or conditions relating to any purchase, which differ from the rate or terms or conditions which would otherwise be required by this subpart; or
( 2 ) Affects the validity of any contract entered into between a qualifying facility and an electric utility for any purchase.
Contact Us

#   Monitoring Unregulated Contaminants in Drinking Water

          -                  Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule      
The EPA collects occurrence data for contaminants that may be present in drinking water, but are not currently subject to EPA drinking water regulations. Learn about the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule.
 
          -                  UCMR 5 Data Finder      
Use the UCMR 5 Data Finder to easily search for, summarize, and download available monitoring results. Learn how in this video demonstration.
 

##         Monitoring Unregulated Contaminants in Drinking Water          

The Safe Drinking Water Act requires that the EPA establish requirements for public water systems (PWSs) to monitor for priority unregulated contaminants every five years and requires the agency to make the results publicly available.
                - Learn about the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR)
                - Meetings and Materials
                - Reporting Requirements

##         Current and Previous UCMRs          

                - UCMR 5 (2022-2026)
                - UCMR 4 (2017-2021)
                - UCMR 3 (2012-2016)
                - UCMR 2 (2007-2011)
                - UCMR 1 (2001-2005)
                - UCM-State Rounds 1&2 (1988-1997)

##         UCMR Laboratory Approval          

                - UCMR 5 Laboratory Approval Program
                - EPA Approved Laboratories for UCMR 5
                - EPA Approved Laboratories for UCMR 3 and UCMR 4

### Occurrence Data

                    - UCMR 5 Data Finder                        - UCMR 5 Data Finder Walkthrough (video) 
                    - UCMR Archival Data Finder                        - UCMR Archival Data Finder Walkthrough (video) 
                    - UCMR Data Summaries
                    - UCMR Occurrence Data Text Files

##         Related Information          

                - Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) and Regulatory Determination
                - National Contaminant Occurrence Database
                - EPA Ground Water and Drinking Water Website

Contact Us
**Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 19 June 2012 —
H.Eich v OHIM — Arav (H.EICH)

(Case T-557/10)**

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark H.EICH — Earlier national figurative mark H SILVIAN HEACH — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Verbal mark H.EICH and figurative mark H SILVIAN HEACH (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21-23, 70,
91)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 September 2010 (Case R 1411/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Arav Holding Srl and H.Eich Srl. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 9 September 2010 (Case R 1411/2009-1); |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by H.Eich Srl in the proceedings before the General Court; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders OHIM to pay the costs necessarily incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the First Board of Appeal; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 4. | | Orders Arav Holding Srl to bear its own costs. |
### §1292. Area telecasting restriction limitation

Section 1291 of this title shall not apply to any joint agreement described in the first sentence in such section which prohibits any person to whom such rights are sold or transferred from televising any games within any area, except within the home territory of a member club of the league on a day when such club is playing a game at home.

(Pub. L. 87–331, §2, Sept. 30, 1961, 75 Stat. 732; Pub. L. 89–800, §6(b)(2), Nov. 8, 1966, 80 Stat. 1515.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1966—Pub. L. 89–800 substituted "described in the first sentence of such section" for "described in such section".
Order entered May 6, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00784-CR

ARMANDO LOPEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F18-76836-M

ORDER

Before the Court is the State’s May 4, 2020 motion for extension of time to 

file its brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief received with the 

motion filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE