alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Letter Agreement



 






EXHIBIT 10.36




Confidential Materials omitted and filed separately with the

Securities and Exchange Commission. Asterisks denote omissions.













The Procter & Gamble Company

Health Care Research Center

P.O. Box 8006, Mason, Ohio 45040-8006




	 	 	 
	 

	 	December 22, 2004






	 	 	 
	Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
	11960 SW 144th St.
	Miami, FL 33186
	Attn:

	 	Diane Barrett
	

	 	Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	 
	RE:

	 	Development Agreement dated April 28, 2003 between Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(“Noven”) and P&G Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“P&GP”)






Dear Ms. Barrett,




This letter will serve as an amendment to the above referenced Agreement. Accept as
modified below, all terms and conditions of the Agreement, including particularly any
confidentiality or non-disclosure obligations, are incorporated into and made part of this
Agreement as though expressly set forth herein.




Noven and P&GP wish to amend paragraph 2(d) of the Agreement as follows:




1) Delete paragraph 2(d) of the Agreement printed below:





“(d) $2 million ***



2) Insert a new paragraph 2(d) of the Agreement as follows:





“(d) $3 million ***



This letter also serves to confirm that the above amendment will be incorporated in the
Development and License Agreement currently being negotiated, and the termination fee of $2
million contemplated by the parties in the Development and License Agreement (Section
10.02(c) of Noven Draft dated June 24, 2004) will not be owed or payable by




 









 








Page 2




P&GP if P&GP terminates such Agreement after payment of the $3 million Success Fee

as outlined in the modified paragraph 2(d) above.




This letter further confirms
that the *** was successful in 2004,
and the criteria has been met for payment of the Success Fee described in paragraph 2(d) of
the above referenced Development Agreement, as amended by this letter. No additional work
is required to be performed by Noven to earn this milestone payment.




Finally, Noven and P&GP will continue negotiations in good faith to complete the Development
and License Agreement, Supply Agreement, and Noncompetition Agreements that are currently in
discussion.




If you approve of the terms herein, please indicate your acceptance by signing and dating
where indicated below.




Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals, Inc.




By: /s/ Nora L. Zorich

Name: Nora L. Zorich

Title: Vice President, P&GP R&D



Agreed and Accepted:

Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc.



By: /s/ Jeffrey F. Eisenberg

Name: Jeffrey F. Eisenberg

Title: Vice President – Strategic Alliances
§ 28.25 Samples for Form A determination. Samples for Form A determination shall be drawn, handled, identified, and shipped by a licensed warehouse according to the methods and procedures specified in this section. Any samples or set of samples which do not meet these specified requirements may be rejected by the Area Director. ( a ) Samples shall be freshly drawn.
( b ) Each sample shall consist of two portions, one drawn from each side of the bale. Each portion shall be at least six (6) inches wide and approximately twelve (12) inches long and shall weigh at least three (3) ounces.
( c ) Where it is necessary to draw two sets of samples, a single cut should be made in each side of the bale, and the portion of cotton removed from each cut should be broken in half across the layers to provide two complete samples. In those cases where this method would result in samples of insufficient length, it will be acceptable to split the sample lengthwise along the layers provided the outside portion from each side is submitted for the official classification.
( d ) Dressing, trimming, or discarding part of the sample is prohibited. No part of the cotton or pieces of bagging, leaf, grass, dirt, sand, or any other material shall be removed from either side of the sample.
( e ) A coupon showing the correct warehouse bale number and name and address of warehouse shall be placed between the two portions of each sample.
( f ) Samples shall be identified and sacked immediately after they are cut without further handling prior to shipment to the Classing Office.
( g ) Samples shall be addressed to and mailed, shipped, or delivered direct to the Classing Office serving the territory in which the warehouse is located. Samples shall in no case be consigned or routed through the owner or custodian of the cotton. Samples mailed or shipped shall be prepaid.
( h ) The Area Director may require that any licensed warehouse shall provide the crop year, gin name and gin bale number for each sample submitted whenever the Area Director deems that such information is necessary in order to assure that each sample is properly identified with the correct bale of cotton.
( i ) The licensed warehouse shall cooperate with employees of the Division making inspections of sampling procedures, and shall draw or permit the drawing of such additional samples, without charge as may be deemed necessary to appraise sampling procedures.
(Sec. 2, Pub. Res. 72-73, 47 Stat. 1621 (7 U.S.C. 51b); sec. 3c, Pub. L. 75-28, 50 Stat. 62 (7 U.S.C. 473c), sec. 10, 42 Stat. 1519, sec. 3c, 50 Stat. 62; 7 U.S.C. 61, 473c)
[28 FR 10633, Oct. 3, 1963, as amended at 42 FR 24712, May 16, 1977; 45 FR 46783, July 11, 1980; 52 FR 30881, Aug. 18, 1987]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6856
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES A. BUTLER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:91-cr-00044) Submitted: November 28, 2007 Decided: December 28, 2007 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James A. Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant II, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: James A. Butler appeals the district court’s orders denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000) motion and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find that the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Butler , No. 3:91-cr-00044 (E.D. Va. Apr. 17 & May 3, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal c ontentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
OAO 247 (02/08) Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

United States of America )

)

)

)

)

)

v.

Melvin Wilson Case No: 3:98cr78/LAC

USM No: 04402-017

Date of Previous Judgment: 26 January 1999

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Applicable) Defendant’s Attorney

Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

Upon motion of 9 the defendant 9 the Director of the Bureau of Prisons : the court under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has

subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 994(u), and having considered such motion,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is:

9 DENIED. : GRANTED and the defendant’s previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in 

the last judgment issued) of 272 months is reduced to 230 months .

I. COURT DETERMINATION OF GUIDELINE RANGE (Prior to Any Departures)

Previous Offense Level: 32 Amended Offense Level: 30

Criminal History Category: V Criminal History Category: V

Previous Guideline Range: 188 to 235 months Amended Guideline Range: 151 to 188 months

II. SENTENCE RELATIVE TO AMENDED GUIDELINE RANGE

: The reduced sentence as to Counts 1 and 2 is within the amended guideline range.

9 The previous term of imprisonment imposed was less than the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time

of sentencing as a result of a departure or Rule 35 reduction, and the reduced sentence is comparably less than the

amended guideline range.

9 Other (explain):

III. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Defendant’s motion for a reduction of sentence under Amendment 706 to the guidelines (doc 263) was denied on

31 March 2008 (doc 266). However, as a result of Amendments 711 and 715, which became effective 1 May 2008,

defendant’s guideline range is due to be reduced two points resulting in an amended offense level of 30 with an amended

guideline range of 151 to 188 months. 

Therefore, defendant’s total sentence is reduced from 272 months to 230 months as follows. 170 months as to

Counts 1 and 2, each count to run concurrent, one with the other; 60 months mandatory as to Count 3, to run consecutive

to Counts 1, 2 and 4 as required by statute; and 120 months as to Count 4, to run concurrent with Counts 1 and 2, for the

total sentence of 230 months imprisonment. 

Except as provided above, all provisions of the judgment dated 26 January 1999 shall remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Order Date: s/L.A. Collier 3 July 2008

 Judge’s signature

Effective Date: Lacey A. Collier, Senior U.S. District Judge

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

Case 3:98-cr-00078-LC-MD Document 298 Filed 07/03/08 Page 1 of 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### United States Parole Commission

(Pub. L. 94-409) (5 U.S.C. Sec. 552b)

I, Isaac Fulwood, of the United States Parole Commission, was present at a meeting of said Commission, which started at approximately 10:30 a.m., on Tuesday, November 9, 2010, at the U.S. Parole Commission, 5550 Friendship Boulevard, 4th Floor, Chevy Chase, Maryland 20615. The purpose of the meeting was to decide eleven petitions for reconsideration pursuant to 28 CFR 2.27. Four Commissioners were present, constituting a quorum when the vote to close the meeting was submitted.

Public announcement further describing the subject matter of the meeting and certifications of General Counsel that this meeting may be closed by vote of the Commissioners present were submitted to the Commissioners prior to the conduct of any other business. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the following Commissioners voted that the meeting be closed: Isaac Fulwood, Cranston J. Mitchell and Patricia K. Cushwa, J. Patricia Wilson Smoot.

In witness whereof, I make this official record of the vote taken to close this meeting and authorize this record to be made available to the public.

Dated: November 10, 2010.

Isaac Fuiwood,

Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission.

[FR Doc. 2010-29354 Filed 11-19-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
###### Editorial Note on Part 1948

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1948 appear at 80 FR 9888, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1948.91 Inspections of development.

Inspections will be made by the Rural Development State Engineer or other employee designated by the Rural Development State Director to ascertain whether site development is proceeding in accordance with plans and specifications. Such inspections are solely for the benefit of the Government and not for the benefit of the Grantee or any other person.
Case 3:98-cr-00116-RV   Document 50   Filed 11/29/06   Page 1 of 1
#### James T. Rogers, appellee, v. Blanche L. Leitch, appellant.

Gen. No. 8,834.

Opinion filed November 30, 1934.

George W. Hunt, for appellant. F. B. Brian, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Wolfe

delivered the opinion of the court.
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10 (m)

                        COMPUTER TASK GROUP, INCORPORATED

                  EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PLANS AND ARRANGEMENTS

The following is a list of all plans, management contracts and compensatory
arrangements in which the executive officers of the Company participate and
where they can be found:

      Stock Purchase Agreement with Randolph A. Marks - Registration Statement
      No. 2-71086 on Form S-7 filed on February 27, 1981.

      Disability Insurance and Health Arrangements - Amendment No. 1 to
      Registration Statement No. 2-71086 on Form S-7 filed on March 24, 1981.

      First Employee Stock Purchase Plan (Eighth Amendment and Restatement) -
      Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002, Exhibit
      10(p).

      Executive Supplemental Benefit Plan 1997 Restatement, - Annual Report on
      Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001, Exhibit 10(l).

      1991 Restricted Stock Plan - Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
      December 31, 2001, Exhibit 10(j).

      Computer Task Group, Incorporated Non-Qualified Key Employee Deferred
      Compensation Plan - Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
      31, 2000, Exhibit 10(i).

      Computer Task Group, Incorporated 2000 Equity Award Plan - Definitive
      proxy statement dated April 2004 as Exhibit A.

      Change in Control Agreement, dated July 16, 2001, between the Registrant
      and James R. Boldt - Annual Report on From 10-K for the year ended
      December 31, 2001, Exhibit 10(o).

      Employment Agreement, dated July 16, 2001, between the Registrant and
      James R. Boldt - Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
      31, 2001, Exhibit 10(p).

                                                                              60
#### § 29.2289 Packing.

A lot of tobacco consisting of a number of packages submitted as one definite unit for sampling or inspection. It is represented to contain the same kind of tobacco and has a common identification number or mark on each package.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, J. Adam Abram, certify that:

| 1. | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of James River Group, Inc.; |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

2.            Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3.            Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4.             The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this  report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

| October 30, 2006 |   | /s/ J. Adam Abram                                    |
|------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|             |   | J. Adam Abram

President and Chief Executive Officer |
§ 29.9263 Tobacco classification certificate. Each tobacco classification certificate shall show: ( a ) The caption “Tobacco Classification Certificate”;
( b ) Whether it is an original, first, second, or other copy;
( c ) The number of the certificate;
( d ) The sale bill identification number;
( e ) The location of the tobacco at the time of inspection and certification;
( f ) The date of certification;
( g ) The class or type of tobacco;
( h ) The number of lots in the crop-lot;
( i ) The weight of each lot;
( j ) The signature of the inspector and,
( k ) Such additional information as may be required by the Director.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:96cr58-04/RV

BENJAMIN TILLMAN

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Senior Judge Roger Vinson on July 10, 2007

Motion/Pleadings: Motion to schedule a resentencing hearing and/or be resentenced without

the prior offense that was used to enhance sentence 

Filed by Defendant on 6/22/2007 Doc.# 322

RESPONSES:

Government on 7/17/2007 Doc.# 323 

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

 s/Jerry Marbut

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Jerry Marbut

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 17th day of

 July , 2007, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction.

(b) If this Court had jurisdiction, the motion would have to be denied because

Lopez does not apply to sentence enhancements under Title 21, United States

Code, Section 841(b)(1)(A) and Section 802(44).

 /s/ Roger Vinson

ROGER VINSON

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:96-cr-00058-RV-MD Document 324 Filed 07/17/07 Page 1 of 1
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS E ASTLAND , T EXAS J UDGMENT

Mitchell E. Bouldin, * From the 277th District Court of Williamson County, Trial Court No. 11

- 852

- C26

.

Vs. No. 11

- 14

- 00088

- CV * August 7, 2014

Systems & Services Technologies, Inc., * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has considered Mitchell E. Bouldin’s and Systems & Services Technologies, Inc.’s agreed motion to dismiss this appeal and concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the appeal is dismissed. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed again st the party incurring same

.
§ 29.57 Where inspection is offered. Tobacco may be inspected, sampled, or weighed for the purposes of the Act, upon request of an interested party, at points indicated in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section whenever official inspectors, samplers, or weighers are available and the tobacco is offered under conditions that permit of its proper examination. ( a ) Points at which tobacco enters, or is offered for, interstate or foreign shipment, including packing houses, prizeries, warehouses, and other places where tobacco is handled, packed, or stored.
( b ) The stations or the headquarters of inspectors, samplers, or weighers. An official station may be any town, city, or place having a market, receiving station, or other facilities for handling, packing, or storing tobacco and where there is a sufficient volume of work to justify the stationing of an inspector, sampler, or weigher.
( c ) Points near an official station, to the extent permitted by the time of the inspector, sampler, or weigher at such official station.
#### § 29.3686 Key to standard grademarks.

| Group | Qualities | Colors |
| --- | --- | --- |
| A—Wrappers | 1—Choice | L—Light brown |
| B—Heavy Leaf | 2—Fine | F—Medium brown |
| C—Thin Leaf | 3—Good | R—Reddish brown |
| X—Lugs | 4—Fair | D—Dark brown |
| N—Nondescript | 5—Low | M—Mixed |
| S—Scrap | | G—Green |

[30 FR 9207, July 23, 1965, as amended at 51 FR 40408, Nov. 7, 1986]

Official Standard Grades for Wisconsin Cigar-Binder Tobacco (U.S. Types 54 and 55)[1]

###### Footnotes -
  29.3686

[1] These standards also apply to Type 53 Havana seed tobacco.
#### §§ 1780.58-1780.60 [Reserved]