alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
cffi_Ex_10_16


		
			Exhibit 10.16
		

		
			BASE SALARIES FOR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
		

		
			OF
		

		
			C&F FINANCIAL CORPORATION
		

		
			The following are the base salaries (on an annual basis) effective as of January 1, 2018 of the executive officers of C&F Financial Corporation: 
		

		
			 
		

			
					
						Larry G. Dillon

					
					
						    

					
					
						$

					
					
						335,000 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Thomas F. Cherry

					
					
						 

					
					
						$

					
					
						325,000 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						President and Secretary

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Jason E. Long

					
					
						 

					
					
						$

					
					
						201,000 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						John A. Seaman III

					
					
						 

					
					
						$

					
					
						205,000 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Senior Vice President and Chief Credit Officer of C&F Bank 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Bryan E. McKernon

					
					
						 

					
					
						$

					
					
						220,000 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						President and Chief Executive Officer of C&F Mortgage Corporation

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						S. Dustin Crone

					
					
						 

					
					
						$

					
					
						237,000 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						President of C&F Finance Company
#### In the Matter of Stephanie S., a Child Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Johanna S., Appellant; Children’s Aid Society, Respondent.

[813 NYS2d 720]

*335Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan R. Larabee, J.), entered on or about September 24, 2004, which, upon a fact-finding determination of permanent neglect, terminated respondent’s parental rights to the subject child and committed the child’s guardianship and custody to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence of, inter alia, petitioner agency’s referral of respondent to parenting skills training *(see Matter of Jonathan M.,*19 AD3d 197 [2005], *Lv denied*5 NY3d 798 [2005]), and an instance of medical neglect indicative of continued lack of insight into basic parenting responsibilities. Family Court properly took judicial notice of the court file produced in the underlying neglect proceeding *(see Matter of Anjoulic J.,*18 AD3d 984, 986 [2005]). Respondent’s argument that certain materials in that file do not qualify as agency business records is unpreserved, her objection thereto having been that the materials are irrelevant because of their age. Respondent’s cross-examination of the agency caseworker concerning the reasons for the filing of the instant termination petition was properly precluded as beyond the scope of direct examination, which was limited to laying a foundation for the admission of agency records. Moreover, respondent could have called the caseworker on her direct case if she wished to examine her on the issues she raised during cross-examination *(see Grcic v City of New York,*139 AD2d 621, 626 [1988]). We have considered respondent’s other arguments, including Family Court’s preclusion of certain proposed testimony as irrelevant, and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Malone, JJ.
PART 48 – VALUE ENGINEERING

 SUBPART 48.1 – POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

 48.101 General.

SUBPART 48.1 – POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

48.101 General.

(S-90) When a contracting officer receives a Value Engineering Change Proposal (VECP) from the

contractor, the contracting officer / acquisition team shall:

(1) Acknowledge receipt within 5 business days.

(2) Provide a copy to the Program Management Office (PMO) and copy the DISA VE Senior

Management Official in the DISA Office of the Component Acquisition Executive; the evaluation shall

convene within 10 business days and the KO shall be notified of the acceptance or rejection within

15 business days.

(3) If additional information is needed, the PMO will notify the contractor, and copy the Contracting

Officer and VE Senior Management Official. If negotiation of the VE is required, the KO shall lead

the negotiations.

(4) If accepted, the KO shall execute a bilateral modification to the contract citing the VE clause in

the contract as the authority for the modification.

(5) If VECP is not accepted, the KO will notify the Contractor in writing, with an explanation of why

the VECP was not accepted. The KO will copy the PMO and the VE Senior Management Official.
ANNEX 25 - LONG RANGE ACQUISITION FORECAST       Pursuant to 5205.404 Release of long-range acquisition forecasts., the template below shall be used in reporting             the long range acquisition forecast. The electronic version of this template is             available on the website identified at NMCARS 5201.105-3 Copies..
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3191 

To provide for the reliquidation of certain entries of certain small diameter 

carbon and alloy seamless standard line and pressure pipe from Romania. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 25, 2006 

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself and Mr. LAUTENBERG) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To provide for the reliquidation of certain entries of certain 

small diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard line 

and pressure pipe from Romania. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. RELIQUIDATION OF CERTAIN ENTRIES OF CER4 TAIN SMALL DIAMETER CARBON AND ALLOY 

5 SEAMLESS STANDARD LINE AND PRESSURE 

6 PIPE FROM ROMANIA. 

7 (a) RELIQUIDATION OF ENTRIES.—Notwithstanding 

8 sections 514 and 520 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

9 1514 and 1520) or any other provision of law, the Bureau 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•S 3191 IS 

1 of Customs and Border Protection shall, not later than 

2 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act— 

3 (1) reliquidate the entries of certain small di4 ameter carbon and alloy seamless standard line and 

5 pressure pipe from Romania manufactured and ex6 ported by S.C. Silcotub S.A. listed in subsection (b) 

7 without assessment of antidumping duties or inter8 est in accordance with the final results of the anti9 dumping duty administrative review of the Depart10 ment of Commerce (68 Fed. Reg. 12672 (March 17, 

11 2003)); and 

12 (2) refund any antidumping duties with interest 

13 which were previously paid on such entries. 

14 (b) AFFECTED ENTRIES.—The entries referred to in 

15 subsection (a) are as follows: 

Entry number Date of entry Port 

558–1171537–8 ........................ 01/20/2001 ......................... Houston

558–2014403–2 ........................ 07/24/2000 ......................... Mobile

Æ 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
Case 3:06-cv-00638-SRW Document 16 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-00638-SRW Document 16 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 2 of 2
Filed 3/12/02 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2002 ND 41

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Steven Lee Morrison, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20010105

Appeal from the District Court of Ward  County, Northwest Judicial District, the Honorable Robert W. Holte, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Thomas K. Schoppert, Northland Professional Bldg., 600 22nd Avenue NW, Minot, N.D. 58701, for defendant and appellant.

Mark A. Flagstad, Assistant State’s Attorney, Ward County Courthouse, 315 3rd Street SE, Minot, N.D. 58701, for plaintiff and appellee.

State v. Morrison

No. 20010105

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Steven L. Morrison appeals from a judgment of conviction, based upon a jury verdict of guilty, of the offense of assaulting a police officer in violation of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-17-01.  Morrison argues it was an obvious error for the trial court to exclude the definition of bodily injury in the jury instructions.  Morrison failed to prove the alleged obvious error was prejudicial.  We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

William A. Neumann

Dale V. Sandstrom

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Mary Muehlen Maring
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71-87K, 1621-1627.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 84 FR 45645, Aug. 30, 2019.

§ 810.1205 Special grades and special grade requirements. ( a ) *Ergoty rye.* Rye that contains more than 0.30 percent of ergot.
( b ) *Garlicky rye.* Rye that contains in a 1,000-gram portion more than six green garlic bulblets or an equivalent quantity of dry or partly dry bulblets.
( c ) *Light garlicky rye.* Rye that contains in a 1,000-gram portion two or more, but not more than six, green garlic bulblets or an equivalent quantity of dry or partly dry bulblets.
( d ) *Light smutty rye.* Rye that has an unmistakable odor of smut, or that contains in a 250-gram portion smut balls, portions of smut balls, or spores of smut in excess of a quantity equal to 14 smut balls but not in excess of a quantity equal to 30 smut balls of average size.
( e ) *Plump rye.* Rye that contains not more than 5.0 percent of rye and other matter that passes through a 0.064 × 3 ⁄ 8 oblong-hole sieve.
( f ) *Smutty rye.* Rye that contains in a 250-gram portion smut balls, portions of smut balls, or spores of smut in excess of a quantity equal to 30 smut balls of average size.
[52 FR 24418, June 30, 1987, as amended at 52 FR 24441, June 30, 1987]
Subpart 425.1 - Buy American Act - Supplies

Source: 70 FR 48, Jan. 3, 2005, unless otherwise noted.

Parent topic: PART 425 - FOREIGN ACQUISITION

425.102 [Reserved]

425.103 Exceptions.

(a) The Senior Procurement Executive (SPE) shall make the determination prescribed in FAR

25.103(a).

(b) Copies of determinations of nonavailability in accordance with FAR 25.103(b)(2) or 25.202(a)(2),

for articles, material or supplies not listed in FAR 25.104, may be submitted to the SPE for

submission to the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council (CAAC).

425.104 Nonavailable articles.

Information required by FAR 25.104(b) shall be submitted to the SPE for submission to the CAAC.

425.105 Determining reasonableness of cost.

The SPE may make the determination prescribed in FAR 25.105(a). Requests for a determination by

the SPE shall be submitted by the HCA, in writing, and shall provide a detailed justification

supporting why evaluation factors higher than those listed in FAR 25.102(b)(1) and (2) should be

applied to determine whether the offered price of a domestic end product is unreasonable.

425.108 [Reserved]
cytk-ex1048_584.htm



[*] = Certain confidential information contained in this document, marked by brackets, has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 24b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

Exhibit 10.48

 

 

December 21, 2017

 

 

Akiyoshi Shimaya

Executive Director

Candidate Discovery Science Labs. Unit 4Drug Discovery Research

Astellas Pharma Inc.

21, Miyukigaoka Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki 305-8585

Japan

 

RE:Amendment to Collaboration Agreement; Extension of Research Term

 

Dear Akiyoshi:

 

As you know, Astellas Pharma Inc. (“Astellas”) and Cytokinetics, Inc. (“Cytokinetics”) are parties to that certain Amended and Restated License and Collaboration Agreement dated December 22, 2014, as amended by the Amendment to the Amended and Restated License and Collaboration Agreement dated July 27, 2016 and the Amendment to Collaboration Agreement dated April 11, 2017 (as so amended, the “Collaboration Agreement”).  Capitalized terms used in this letter and not otherwise defined shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Collaboration Agreement.  The Parties hereby agree to amend the Collaboration Agreement as follows, effective as of the date first set forth above:

 


	
 
	
1.
	
Section 5.2 of the Collaboration Agreement is hereby amended to replace the phrase “December 31, 2017” in the first sentence of such section with the phrase “December 31, 2019.”





	
 
	
2.
	
Section 5.3 of the Collaboration Agreement is hereby amended to replace the phrase “December 31, 2017” in the third sentence of such section with the phrase “December 31, 2018.”  




 


	
 
	
3.
	
Notwithstanding Section 5.3 of the Collaboration Agreement, Astellas and Cytokinetics hereby agree that the JRC shall agree upon the out-of-pocket costs and number of Cytokinetics FTEs for activities under the Research Plan that Astellas shall support annually from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019 by [*].




 






Confidential

 

Astellas Pharma Inc.

Amendment to Collaboration Agreement; Extension of Research Term

Page Two

 

 

 

If the foregoing is acceptable to and agreed by Astellas, please so indicate by having an authorized representative of Astellas sign this letter in the appropriate signature line below, and return such signed copy to Elisabeth Schnieders, Ph.D., Senior Vice President, Business Development, at your earliest convenience.  If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact Elisabeth at (650) 624-3083 or by e-mail at eschnieders@cytokinetics.com.

 

Sincerely,

 

/s/ Robert I. Blum

 

Robert I. Blum

President & CEO 



Agreed and accepted:

Astellas Pharma Inc.

By:  /s/ Wataru Uchida

Name: Wataru Uchida

Title: President, Drug Discovery Research

Date: December 26, 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
2
Docket No. FAA-2015-2471

Sept, 26, 2015

This letter is in response to missing requirements for the above Docket No.

The FAA requested more information in the following 2 requirements.

1. The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

2. Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support my request.

This communication is an attempt to satisfy the above requirements.

1. Beneficial to the Public as a Whole

 Bring people to Colorado to benefit our local business – The pictures and videos created from 

my aircraft can be used for all types tourism, sports, and event advertising. More people coming 

to our state and attending local events is good for entrepreneurship and generates revenue for 

the city which in turn makes a better place for residents to live.

 Real Estate/Rental Industry – The photos and video from my aircraft can greatly benefit this 

industry. The housing market affects many people in different ways. Helping people buy and 

sell homes is a great contribution the the general public.

 Inexpensive Entertainment – We have the ability to “give rides” with our UAS. This means 

someone can put on a pair of video goggles and see the camera view from the UAV. The feeling 

and exhilaration is much flying in a helicopter at a fraction of the price and cost. My ability to 

provide this service benefits the general public by giving people who might not be able to afford 

the experience of aviation any other way.

2. Additional Information

My view is this is good opportunity for the FAA to make a safe, competent UAS pilot available to the 

needs of the public. I have listed 3 ways it benefits the public above, but the opportunities are endless.

From a safety perspective, it is my opinion the risk is very low. I have hundreds of hours flying 

remote controlled aircraft, and spent the better part of my life in the aviation environment. 

Along with being a certificated private pilot with approximately 450 hours PIC time. Also 

decreasing safety concerns, this UAS will never be flown out of visual range. It's not really e

quipped to do it.

It is also my view, the aircraft I have submitted is one of the safest on the market. It has 

valuable safety features that can be tested safely, and work. For example safety fences, return to 

home capability, and more features that can be found in the user manual.
#### Betty Ann D’Agnese, Formerly Known as Betty Ann Pinckney, Appellant, v Diana Spinelli, Respondent.

[814 NYS2d 528]

In an action to recover damages for breach of a real estate contract, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), entered July 1, 2005, which, after a nonjury trial, and upon a decision of the same *852court dated October 8, 2004, is in favor of the defendant on her counterclaims and against the plaintiff in the principal sum of $20,000.

Ordered that the notice of appeal from the decision is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

“As this case was tried to the court, without a jury, this Court’s power to review the evidence is as broad as that of the trial court, with appropriate regard given to the decision of the trial judge who was in a position to assess the credibility of the witnesses” *(Bubba’s Bagels of Wesley Hills, Inc. v Bergstol,*18 AD 3d 411, 412 [2005]; *see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford,*60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]). Here, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the defendant properly and effectively exercised her right to cancel the subject real estate contract in accordance with the mortgage contingency clause *(see Suarez v Ingalls,*282 AD2d 599 [2001]; *Baker v Norman,*226 AD2d 301 [1996]; *Dellicarri v Hirschfeld,*210 AD2d 584 [1994]). Thus, under the express terms of the contract, the defendant was entitled to a full refund of her down payment, together with the interest which was earned from the deposit of her down payment in an interest-bearing account *(see Duffy v St. Germain,*21 AD3d 872 [2005]; *Baker v Norman, supra; Berholtz v Georgiou,*184 AD2d 677 [1992]; *Lindenbaum v Royco Prop. Corp.,*165 AD2d 254 [1991]; *Kressel, Rothlein & Roth v Gallagher,*155 AD2d 587 [1989]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Mastro and Covello, JJ., concur.
204.7107 Contract accounting classification reference number (ACRN) and agency accounting identifier (AAI).       Traceability of funds from accounting systems to contract actions is accomplished using ACRNs and AAIs.  Follow the procedures at PGI                 204.7107              for use of ACRNs and AAIs.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 204.71 - UNIFORM CONTRACT LINE ITEM NUMBERING SYSTEM
52.247-27 Contract Not Affected by Oral Agreement.       As prescribed in 47.207-8(b), insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts for transportation or for transportation-related services:          Contract Not Affected by Oral Agreement (Apr 1984)          No oral statement of any person shall modify or otherwise affect the terms, conditions, or specifications stated in this contract. All modifications to the contract must be made in writing by the Contracting Officer or an authorized representative.          (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.247 [Reserved]
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3300 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3300

  To suspend temporarily the duty on automatic drip coffeemakers with 
                           electronic clocks.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 26, 2006

   Mr. Allen introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on automatic drip coffeemakers with 
                           electronic clocks.

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

SECTION 1. AUTOMATIC DRIP COFFEEMAKERS WITH ELECTRONIC CLOCKS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``      9902.85.16        Self-contained, carafe- Free      No change       No change       On or before 12/
                           less automatic drip                                               31/2009          ''
                           coffeemakers with                                                                   .
                           electronic clocks
                           (provided for in
                           subheading
                           8516.71.00)..........

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 932.67 Effective time.

The provisions of this subpart, as well as any amendments to this subpart, shall become effective at such time as the Secretary may declare, above his signature, and shall continue in force until terminated in one of the ways specified in § 932.68.
§ 772.15 Protective advances. ( a ) The Agency may approve, without regard to any loan or total indebtedness limitation, vouchers to pay costs, including insurance and real estate taxes, to preserve and protect the security, the lien, or the priority of the lien securing the debt owed to the Agency if the debt instrument provides that the Agency may voucher the account to protect its lien or security.
( b ) The Agency may pay protective advances only when it determines it to be in the Government's best financial interest.
( c ) Protective advances are immediately due and payable.