alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

  	
  675 WEST KENDALL STREET

  	
  T: 617.491.9700

  	
  F: 617.621.0431

  
	
   

  	
  CAMBRIDGE, MA 02142

  	
  WWW.MOMENTAPHARMA.COM

  



 





July 18, 2006


Dr. Robert S. Langer, Jr.

98 Montvale Road

Newton, MA 02459


Re: Consulting
Agreement — Amendment and Renewal


Dear Dr. Langer:


Reference is made to the Consulting Agreement dated
July 23, 2001 between Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (formerly Mimeon, Inc.) (“Momenta”),
and you, as extended and amended by the June 23, 2003, July 2, 2004 and August 8,
2005 letter agreements (collectively, the “Agreement”).  Capitalized terms used herein and not
otherwise defined shall have the meanings given such terms in the Agreement.


1. The parties agree to amend the Agreement as
follows:


Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its
entirety and replaced with the following:


“2. Services.


2.1 Consultant shall provide technical and
strategic consulting services in connection with various Momenta programs as
may be reasonably requested by the Company from time to time.


2.2 Consultant hereby represents, warrants and
agrees that Consultant has not been, and during the term of the Agreement
(including any renewal period), will not be, debarred by the Food and Drug
Administration from working in or providing services to any pharmaceutical or
biotechnology company under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or under
any other applicable law.  Consultant
shall immediately notify Momenta if it becomes aware of any such circumstances
during the term of this Agreement (including any renewal period), and shall
cease performing services under the Agreement until otherwise instructed by
Momenta.”


2. Pursuant to Section
1 of the Agreement, Company and Consultant hereby agree to extend the term of
the Agreement for one additional year, effective from July 23, 2006 through
July 22, 2007 (the “Renewal Period”).


3. All other terms and
conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect during the
Renewal Period.









 



 


If the foregoing
is in conformity with your understanding, please sign both copies of this
letter agreement and return one fully-executed original to Lisa Carron
Shmerling, VP, Legal Affairs.


	
  Very truly yours,

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Alan L. Crane

  	
   

  
	
  Alan L. Crane

  	
   

  
	
  President and Chief Executive Officer

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Agreed and accepted:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Robert S. Langer Jr.

  	
   

  
	
  Print: Robert S. Langer, Jr.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Date: July 19, 2006
**WELLS****FARGO**US Bank N.A. 190 South  LaSalle Street 7th Floor Mail Code: MK-IL-SL7R Chicago, Illinois 60603 **CMBS Department****MACN9401-on****1055 10****th****Avenue SE****Minneapolis, MN 55414**RE: Annual  Statement of Compliance for  Morgan Stanley  Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust  2013-C7 Commercial Mortgage  Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2013-C7 Per the  Pooling and Servicing Agreement  dated  as of January 1, 2013 (the "Agreement"),  the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Custodian  ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies  as follows as of and for the year ending December  31, 2014 (the "Reporting  Period"): (a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during  the  Reporting  Period  and  of its performance under  the Agreement  has been  made  under  such officer's supervision; and (b) To the best of such officer's knowledge,  based  on such  review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under  the Agreement  in all material  respects  throughout the  Reporting  Period. February 18, 2015 /s/ Gail Vannest Gail Vannest Vice President **Wells Fargo  Bank, N.A**
#### § 719.46 Are costs covered by this part subject to audit?

All costs covered by this part are subject to audit by the Department, its designated representative, or the Government Accountability Office. *See* § 719.21.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         289,828
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,155,430
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               903,698
<PP&E>                                      10,744,119
<DEPRECIATION>                             (8,275,754)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,817,321
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,589,469
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    345,455
<COMMON>                                        44,468
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,162,071)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,817,321
<SALES>                                     16,014,558
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,014,558
<CGS>                                        9,686,257
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,686,257
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            17,869,142
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             121,173
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (11,662,014)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (11,662,014)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (11,662,014)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.42)
        

</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-2473

___________

Byther Mae Williams; Richard V. Fink, *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Regency Financial Corp., *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: September 27, 2001

 Filed: November 16, 2001

___________

Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD,

Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Byther Mae Williams purports to appeal an adverse district court decision in

her bankruptcy proceeding against Regency Financial Corp. Regency contends the

appeal is untimely, and requests dismissal. Upon careful review of the record, we

observe that the district court never entered a separate judgment, as required by

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. Accordingly, the appeal is premature, we are

without appellate jurisdiction, and we dismiss without prejudice to the taking of an

appeal once the district court enters judgment on a separate document. See Moore v.

St. Louis Music Supply Co., 526 F.2d 801, 802 (8th Cir. 1975).
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1997
<CASH>                                           5,346
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   71,117
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,153
<INVENTORY>                                     92,878
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               179,593
<PP&E>                                         106,050
<DEPRECIATION>                                  33,718
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 282,782
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           94,405
<BONDS>                                        138,395
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           223
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,961
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   282,782
<SALES>                                        152,415
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               152,415
<CGS>                                          124,084
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  124,084
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                35,402
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,577
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,648)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       342
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (13,990)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (2,550)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (16,540)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.76)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.76)
        

</TABLE>
§ 781.2 Policy. ( a ) It is the policy of this regulation to use the patent system to promote the utilization of inventions arising from Department of Energy supported research and development.
( b ) Decisions as to grants or denials of any license application will, in the discretion of the Secretary of Energy, be based on the Department of Energy's view of what is in the best interests of the United States and the general public under the provisions of these regulations. Decisions of the Department of Energy under these regulations may be made on the Secretary of Energy's behalf by the Assistant General Counsel for Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property, except where otherwise delegated.
[77 FR 4889, Feb. 1, 2012]
# EUR-Lex - 31976R0368 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31976R0368

**Council Regulation (EEC) No 368/76 of 16 February 1976 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75 in respect of the reference period for calculating the levy and the sluice-gate price for eggs **

*
Official Journal L 045 , 21/02/1976 P. 0002 - 0002 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 7 P. 0004 Greek special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 14 P. 0165 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 7 P. 0004 Spanish special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 9 P. 0233 Portuguese special edition Chapter 03 Volume 9 P. 0233 *

COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 368/76 of 16 February 1976 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75 in respect of the reference period for calculating the levy and the sluice-gate price for eggs

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 43 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),

Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organization of the market in eggs (2) includes a system of import levies and sluice-gate prices, one of the reference components of which is that of the prices of certain types of feed grain on the world market;

Whereas fluctuations in world market prices for cereals have become more marked in the past few years ; whereas it appears that the use of the world market prices for cereals applicable during the six months preceding the quarter during which the levy and the sluice-gate price are to be calculated can produce figures that no longer reflect price trends in non-member countries ; whereas it is therefore appropriate to up-date the basis of calculation by adopting a reference period of five months preceding the month in which the levy and the sluice-gate price are fixed,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The third subparagraph of Article 4 (1) (a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75 shall be replaced by the following:

"The prices for feed grain on the world market shall be determined quarterly on the basis of the prices for such grain recorded for the five months ending one month before the quarter in respect of which the said component is calculated."

Article 2

The second subparagraph of Article 7 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75 shall be replaced by the following:

"The price for the quantity of feed grain shall be determined quarterly on the basis of the world market prices for such grain recorded for the five months ending one month before the quarter in respect of which the sluice-gate price is fixed."

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 May 1976.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 16 February 1976.

For the Council

The President

J. HAMILIUS (1)OJ No C 28, 9.2.1976, p. 41. (2)OJ No L 282, 1.11.1975, p. 49.
939 A.2d 116

#### ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND, Petitioner, v. Ray L. HWANG, Respondent.

Misc. Docket AG No. 60,

Sept. Term, 2007.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Jan. 7, 2008.

*ORDER*

The parties herein have jointly petitioned this Court to reprimand the Respondent pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-772. Upon review of said joint petition and for the reasons set forth therein, it is this 7th day of January, 2008,

ORDERED, that the Respondent, RAY L. HWANG, be, and he is hereby, REPRIMANDED.
§ 602.4 Exceptions. ( a ) Single-case exceptions from this part may be authorized in writing by the Director, Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security, the Head of the Contracting Activity, or their designees, upon the written request of DOE staff, an applicant for award, or a recipient. A request from an applicant or a recipient must be submitted to or through the cognizant contracting officer.
( b ) Whenever a proposed deviation from this part would be a deviation from 2 CFR part 200 as amended by 2 CFR part 910, the deviation must also be authorized in accordance with the procedures prescribed in that part.
[60 FR 5841, Jan. 31, 1995, as amended at 71 FR 68729, Nov. 28, 2006; 79 FR 76046, Dec. 19, 2014; 80 FR 5007, Jan. 30, 2015; 88 FR 41292, June 26, 2023]
§ 50.21 Class 104 licenses; for medical therapy and research and development facilities. A class 104 license will be issued, to an applicant who qualifies, for any one or more of the following: to transfer or receive in interstate commerce, manufacture, produce, transfer, acquire, possess, or use. ( a ) A utilization facility for use in medical therapy; or
( b ) ( 1 ) A production or utilization facility the construction or operation of which was licensed pursuant to subsection 104b of the Act prior to December 19, 1970;
( 2 ) A production or utilization facility for industrial or commercial purposes constructed or operated under an arrangement with the Administration entered into under the Cooperative Power Reactor Demonstration Program, except as otherwise specifically required by applicable law; and
( 3 ) A production or utilization facility for industrial or commercial purposes, when specifically authorized by law.
( c ) A production or utilization facility, which is useful in the conduct of research and development activities of the types specified in section 31 of the Act, and which is not a facility of the type specified in paragraph (b) of this section or in § 50.22.
[21 FR 355, Jan. 19, 1956, as amended at 31 FR 15145, Dec. 2, 1966; 35 FR 19659, Dec. 29, 1970; 38 FR 11446, May 8, 1973; 43 FR 6924, Feb. 17, 1978]
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 397

Congratulating the Navy basketball team for winning the 2005 Armed Forces 

Basketball Championship. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2005

Mrs. DAVIS of California (for herself and Mr. FORBES) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION

Congratulating the Navy basketball team for winning the 

2005 Armed Forces Basketball Championship.

Whereas on Sunday July 24, 2005, the Navy basketball team 

defeated Army by a score of 85–71, clinching a final victory in the Armed Forces Basketball Championship in 

Paige Field House at Camp Pendleton in Southern California; 

Whereas rookie basketball coach Sam Caldwell led Navy to 

its first Armed Forces Basketball Championship victory 

since 1996; 

Whereas Francis Ebong helped lead Navy to their final 

game’s victory, scoring 14 points, grabbing 17 rebounds 

and racking up three assists; 
2 

•HRES 397 IH 

Whereas Ryan Monroe, Micah Bonner, Jason Jefferson, and 

George O’Garro also scored in the double digits; 

Whereas the roster of the championship Navy basketball 

team also includes Randall Holts, Ray-Jay Johnson, 

Leon Marbra, Taj Matthews, Karega McCollum, Silas 

Shackelford, and Marion Thurmond; 

Whereas the coaching staff for the championship Navy basketball team includes head coach Sam Caldwell, and Assistant Coaches Jason Kuhl and David Landriault; 

Whereas Navy surged through the final minutes of the game 

on a 19–6 point run; and 

Whereas Navy surprised military basketball enthusiasts, 

defying their athletic program’s reputation by securing a 

decisive victory: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, that the House of Representatives con2 gratulates— 

3 (1) the all-Navy basketball team on its extraor4 dinary victory in the Armed Forces Basketball 

5 Championship of 2005; and 

6 (2) rookie basketball coach Sam Caldwell for 

7 leading Navy to its first Armed Forces Basketball 

8 Championship victory since 1996. 

Æ
#### THOMAS et al., Respondents, v. THOMSON et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 18, 1914.)

Action by Charles S. Thomas and others against John Thomson and another. E. Scott, of New York City, for appellants. J. Dunne, of New York City, for respondents.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
ex10-47.htm


     

    
      

      

    

     

    
      EXHIBIT
10.47

       

      Summary
of Certain Executive Officer and Director Compensation Arrangements

        

      Named
Executive Officer Salary and Bonus Information

        

      The
following table presents the base salaries as of February 19, 2010 of our named
executive officers serving as executive officers as of December 31,
2009.

       

      
        	
                Name

              	
                Salary

              
	
                Louis
      A. Raspino

              	
                $

              	
                950,000

              
	
                Brian
      C. Voegele

              	
                $

              	
                425,000

              
	
                W.
      Gregory Looser

              	
                $

              	
                425,000

              
	
                Lonnie
      D. Bane

              	
                $

              	
                352,000

              
	
                Kevin
      C. Robert

              	
                $

              	
                355,000

              


      

    

     

    
      Under our
annual incentive compensation plan for 2010, bonuses for executive officers will
be paid based on the level of achievement of specific objectives established by
our Compensation Committee. The objectives under the plan for 2010 (with target
weight) consist of earnings per share (25%), free cash flow (20%), operating and
general and administrative expense control (15%), operating efficiency (10%),
safety performance on a company-wide basis (10%) and personal performance goals
(20%). Target bonuses payable for 2010 as a percentage of base salary for the
persons named above are as follows: Mr. Raspino—100%; Mr. Voegele—65%; Mr.
Looser—65%; Mr. Bane—60%; and Mr. Robert—60%. The maximum bonus equals two times
the target bonus.

      


      Nonemployee
Director Fees

       

      The
annual retainer for the chairman of the board is $180,000 and for each other
director who is not an employee of our company is $50,000.  We pay a
fee of $2,000 for each board and committee meeting attended. For committee
meetings, the fee is payable to all nonemployee directors participating,
regardless of committee membership, except to a director who is not a member of
the committee that does not receive the advance materials, if any, circulated to
the committee members. In addition, the chairman of the Audit Committee receives
an annual fee of $15,000; the chairman of the Compensation Committee receives an
annual fee of $12,000; and the chairman of the Nominating and Corporate
Governance Committee receives an annual fee of $10,000.  Directors who
are employees receive no additional compensation for serving on the board of
directors or its committees.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7128
DWAYNE JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. E. SAUNDERS, Correctional Officer, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-96-572-R) Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 2, 1996 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwayne Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We have reviewed the record andthe district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Johnson v. Saunders , No. CA-96-572-R (W.D. Va. July 15, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
2007-1924.

#### State ex rel. Payne v. Glaeden.

In Habeas Corpus. Reported at 116 Ohio St.3d 1434, 2007-Ohio-6518, 877 N.E.2d 987. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

O'Donnell, J., dissents.
#### Joseph Solis, Appellant, v. City of New York, Respondent.

Order entered December 11, 1969, denying summary judgment to plaintiff, unanimously affirmed without costs and without disbursements. As Special Term denied the motion on the ground that there were issues of fact, without specifying what those issues were, we deem it advisable to provide a general guideline for the trial court. Plaintiff lost his post as Deputy Director of Civil Defense when the department was abolished. He was then certified to a list as qualified for appointment as administrator. Eleven times he was certified to various departments for appointment, and each time the respective department refused to appoint him. The twelfth time he was appointed. Suit is for salary for the period between the time that he lost employment because of the abolition of the department and the date he was subsequently appointed. We see three issues. The first is substantive and can be generally stated as being whether any of the certifications involved an appointment or a reinstatement. If the former, the department head retains a right of selection; if the latter, there is no discretion (see *Matter of Folkes*v. Hushion, 283 N. Y. 536). The title of administrator is not conclusive, the real test being whether the qualifications for the particular post are so similar to the qualifications for petitioner’s prior position that it can be said that a failure to appoint him was arbitrary or capricious. The second and third issues, assuming petitioner prevails on the first, concern damages, and they are, respectively, the date on which under the circumstances the plaintiff should have been appointed to a particular post, and whether plaintiff took appropriate steps to mitigate damages. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Nunez and Steuer, JJ.