alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Letter Agreement of Edward M. Hurwitz and ACLARA BioSciences, Inc.



EXHIBIT 10.37 
[GRAPHIC REMOVED HERE] 
 
October 29, 2002 
Ed Hurwitz 
177 Watkins Ave 
Atherton, CA 94027 
 
Dear Ed, 
 
We are pleased to confirm the changes to your employment with ACLARA Biosciences, Inc. Your position is that of Executive
Director at ACLARA BioSciences, Inc., Inc. This is a temporary position that reports directly to ACLARA’s Board of Directors. This new role and salary terms described below is effective October 15, 2002. Effective December 1, 2002, you will
assume the position of interim CEO. This title and role will continue until a new CEO is hired with the company. During your temporary employment with the Company you will be compensated at rate of $325,000 annually paid on the 15th and the last day of the month. Because your position is classified as “temporary” you will not be eligible for the
ACLARA employee benefits program. 
 
You will also be paid a one
time bonus of $50,000 payable upon commencement of employment of a new CEO. This is in lieu of the bonus included in your original offer letter dated in June of 2002. 
 
You have been granted an option to purchase 100,000 shares of ACLARA common stock that will be vested immediately. This
option is under our Stock Option Plan and the details and option price have already been provided to you. 
 
ACLARA agrees to extend its standard D&O indemnification coverage to you and will extend this to Alta Partners provided our respective counsels can agree on acceptable terms. 
 
We hope your employment experience with ACLARA BioSciences, Inc. will be
challenging, satisfying, and mutually beneficial. The employment relationship between you and the Company is “at-will.” This means that you and the Company each have the right to terminate the employment relationship at any time with or
without cause and without advanced notice. While other personnel policies and programs exist and may be changed from time to time, your at-will status is not subject to change except by expressed written agreement signed by an officer of the
Company. This paragraph sets forth our entire agreement regarding your status as an employee of the Company and our mutual right to terminate that status at any time. 
 
Please indicate your acceptance of the position by signing this letter and returning it to Leslie Hill at ACLARA. This letter
and offer supersede any previous discussion or correspondence by ACLARA BioSciences, Inc. 
 
Sincerely, 
 
/s/  Thomas Baruch 
Thomas Baruch 
Chairman 
 

	 Accepted:      /s/  Edward
Hurwitz        
	 	 Date:        12/12/02
#### § 1.1342-1 Computation of tax where taxpayer recovers substantial amount held by another under claim of right; effective date.

Section 1342 shall apply with respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1954.

[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 12052, Nov. 26, 1960]
Editorial Note on Part 880
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 880 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 880.6730 Body waste receptacle. ( a ) *Identification.* A body waste receptacle is a device intended for medical purposes that is not attached to the body and that is used to collect the body wastes of a bed patient.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 880.9. The device also is exempt from the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality system regulation in part 820 of this chapter, with the exception of § 820.180, with respect to general requirements concerning records, and § 820.198, with respect to complaint files.
[66 FR 38806, July 25, 2001]
DAMAGES SOUGHT FOR TRANSPORTATION OF HOGS INFECTED WITH CHOLERA.

Circuit Court of Lorain County.

#### George W. Morton v. Robert Murry.

Decided, November, 1904.

*Trials*— Failure *to Ask Instructions to Disregard Evidence Properly Admitted Waives Error.*

Failure of a defendant to ask tbe court to instruct the jury to disregard evidence, which was properly admitted as against a co-defendant who was subsequently dropped from the case, waives any error of the court in neglecting to so instruct the jury.

Winch, J.; Hale, J., and Marvin, J., concur.

This was an action brought by the defendant in error against plaintiff in error for damages sustained by reason of the wrongful transportation of hogs infected with cholera, whereby *482defendant in error’s hogs became infected and some of them died. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff below.

Three errors alleged are relied upon for the reversal of this judgment.

1. It is claimed that the verdict is not supported by the evidence. A careful reading of the evidence convinces us that the evidence fully sustains the verdict.

2. There were two defendants in the original action: Morton, plaintiff in error, who owned and transported the hogs, and Knauss, who owned the farm adjoining defendant in error’s to which the hogs were transported. During the trial of the case testimony was admitted as to the admissions of Knauss; these were properly admitted as against him, he being a defendant; they were not admissible against Morton.

The court in its charge directed a verdict in favor of Knauss and he was thereby let out of the case, and properly. But the court neglected to caution the jury as to the inadmissibility of Knauss’ admissions as against Morton. Had request to so charge been made, it would have been error to have refused it, but as no such request was made, although the court inquired of defendant’.s counsel'if further requests were desired, we are inclined to rule there was no error herein.

Certainty there was no error in the original admission of the evidence.

3. We think the charge fair and very favorable to defendant below. The’ construction given by the court of the statute, Section 4211, sub-sections 6-7, was all that the defendants were entitled to.

The court held that the action was brought under the statute, and was founded upon the negligence of the defendant, and held that to recover under the statute the plaintiff must prove not only that the defendant transported hogs infected with cholera, whereby the same was communicated to plaintiff’s hogs to his damage, but that the plaintiff must show that the defendant knew his hogs were so infected, at the time he transported them. We find no error in the charge.

Judgment affirmed.
Editorial Note on Part 888
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 888 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 888.3500 Knee joint femorotibial metal/composite semi-constrained cemented prosthesis. ( a ) *Identification.* A knee joint femorotibial metal/composite semi-constrained cemented prosthesis is a two-part device intended to be implanted to replace part of a knee joint. The device limits translation and rotation in one or more planes via the geometry of its articulating surfaces. It has no linkage across-the-joint. This generic type of device includes prostheses that have a femoral component made of alloys, such as cobalt-chromium-molybdenum, and a tibial component with the articulating surfaces made of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene with carbon-fibers composite and is limited to those prostheses intended for use with bone cement (§ 888.3027).
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
Editorial Note on Part 888
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 888 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 888.1600 Bone indentation device. ( a ) *Identification.* A bone indentation device is a device that measures resistance to indentation in bone.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) In vivo performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. Testing must evaluate the risk of bone fracture, soft tissue damage, pain, discomfort, bruising, or bleeding.
( 2 ) Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use, including an evaluation of the accuracy and precision of the device with respect to resistance to bone indentation.
( 3 ) Human factors testing must demonstrate that the intended user(s) can correctly use the device, based on the instructions for use.
( 4 ) The patient-contacting components of the device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
( 5 ) Performance testing must demonstrate: ( i ) The sterility of the patient-contacting components of the device; and
( ii ) Validation of reprocessing instructions for any reusable components of the device.
( 6 ) Performance data must support the shelf life of the device by demonstrating continued sterility and device functionality over the identified shelf life.
( 7 ) Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.
( 8 ) Performance data must be provided to demonstrate the electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) and electrical safety of the device.
( 9 ) Labeling must include: ( i ) Instructions for use;
( ii ) Validated methods and instructions for reprocessing of any reusable components;
( iii ) A shelf life for any sterile components;
( iv ) Information regarding limitations of the clinical significance of the device output; and
( v ) A detailed summary of the accuracy and precision of the device.
[88 FR 755, Jan. 5, 2023]
(logo) Rialto

CAPITAL

 

 

**2018 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item1123)**

** **

** **

Pooling and ServicingAgreement (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement") dated as of August1, 2015 by and among Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp. as Depositor,Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association as MasterServicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, PentalphaSurveillance LLC as Operating Advisor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Associationas Certificate Administrator and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association asTrustee relating to the Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp.,CSAIL 2015-C3 Commercial Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates Series 2015-C3 **(CSAIL 2015-C3)**

 

The undersigned, a dulyauthorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the"Special Servicer") herein certifies to the following:

 

1.       All servicing activities and performanceof such servicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement areperformed on behalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2.       A review of the servicing activities andperformance by the Special Servicer for the period of January 1, 2018 toDecember 31, 2018 (the "Reporting Period") in accordance with thePooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under my supervision.

 

3.       To the best of my knowledge, based on suchreview, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under theterms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects for theReporting Period and if there has been a failure to fulfill any suchobligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and statusthereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

Certified by: /s/ Adam Singer

Adam Singer, ManagingDirector 

 

Date: March 1, 2019
# C_2014329EN.01001701.xml

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/17

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Schmiedag v Commission

(Case T-183/14 R)

((Interim measures - State aid - National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source - Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Urgency - Fumus boni juris))

2014/C 329/23

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Schmiedag GmbH (Hagen, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for suspension of the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened a formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid concerning the German law on renewable energy.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The judgment of 7 April 2014 in Case T-179/14 R Schmiedag v Commission is set aside. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The judgment of 7 April 2014 in Case T-179/14 R Schmiedag v Commission is set aside.

| 3. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Costs are reserved.

---
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 Annual Report of ViroPharma Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with
the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Michel de Rosen                                                      
|Michel de Rosen                                                          
|President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors
|March 14, 2005                                                           
|                                                                         
|/s/ Vincent J. Milano                                                    
|Vincent J. Milano                                                        
|Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer                    
|March 14, 2005
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.3300 *Haemophilus* spp. serological reagents. ( a ) *Identification. Haemophilus* spp. serological reagents are devices that consist of antigens and antisera, including antisera conjugated with a fluorescent dye, that are used in serological tests to identify *Haemophilus* spp. directly from clinical specimens or tissue culture isolates derived from clinical specimens. The identification aids in the diagnosis of diseases caused by bacteria belonging to the genus *Haemophilus* and provides epidemiological information on diseases cause by these microorganisms. Diseases most often caused by *Haemophilus* spp. include pneumonia, pharyngitis, sinusitis, vaginitis, chancroid venereal disease, and a contagious form of conjunctivitis (inflammation of eyelid membranes).
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 866.9.
[47 FR 50823, Nov. 9, 1982, as amended at 63 FR 59226, Nov. 3, 1998]
EXHIBIT 32.b



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 Quarterly Report of American Affordable Housing II Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc N. Teal, Principal Financial Officer of the general partner of the general partner of the Partnership's general partner, C&M Management Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)-15 or 15(d)-15 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and                         
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                         
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.



|                  |     |                            
|----------------- | --- | ---------------------------
|Date:             |     |                            
|February 14, 2008 | By: | /s/ Marc N. Teal           
|                  |     |                            
|                  |     | Marc N. Teal               
|                  |     | Principal Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other

document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Editorial Note on Part 882
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 882 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 882.3 Effective dates of requirement for premarket approval. A device included in this part that is classified into class III (premarket approval) shall not be commercially distributed after the date shown in the regulation classifying the device unless the manufacturer has an approval under section 515 of the act (unless an exemption has been granted under section 520(g)(2) of the act). An approval under section 515 of the act consists of FDA's issuance of an order approving an application for premarket approval (PMA) for the device or declaring completed a product development protocol (PDP) for the device. ( a ) Before FDA requires that a device commercially distributed before the enactment date of the amendments, or a device that has been found substantially equivalent to such a device, has an approval under section 515 of the act FDA must promulgate a regulation under section 515(b) of the act requiring such approval, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section. Such a regulation under section 515(b) of the act shall not be effective during the grace period ending on the 90th day after its promulgation or on the last day of the 30th full calendar month after the regulation that classifies the device into class III is effective, whichever is later. See section 501(f)(2)(B) of the act. Accordingly, unless an effective date of the requirement for premarket approval is shown in the regulation for a device classified into class III in this part, the device may be commercially distributed without FDA's issuance of an order approving a PMA or declaring completed a PDP for the device. If FDA promulgates a regulation under section 515(b) of the act requiring premarket approval for a device, section, 501(f)(1)(A) of the act applies to the device.
( b ) Any new, not substantially equivalent, device introduced into commercial distribution on or after May 28, 1976, including a device formerly marketed that has been substantially altered, is classified by statute (section 513(f) of the act) into class III without any grace period and FDA must have issued an order approving a PMA or declaring completed a PDP for the device before the device is commercially distributed unless it is reclassified. If FDA knows that a device being commercially distributed may be a “new” device as defined in this section because of any new intended use or other reasons, FDA may codify the statutory classification of the device into class III for such new use. Accordingly, the regulation for such a class III device states that as of the enactment date of the amendments, May 28, 1976, the device must have an approval under section 515 of the act before commercial distribution.
[52 FR 17739, May 11, 1987]
Editorial Note on Part 890
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 890 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 890.5650 Powered inflatable tube massager. ( a ) *Identification.* A powered inflatable tube massager is a powered device intended for medical purposes, such as to relieve minor muscle aches and pains and to increase circulation. It simulates kneading and stroking of tissues with the hands by use of an inflatable pressure cuff.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
EXHIBIT 10.8

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

FOR VALUE RECEIVED,  The Internet  Advisory  Corporation  promises to pay to the
order of Richard K. Goldring, 5 Fox Chase Drive, Watchung, New Jersey the sum of
Thirty Thousand Five Hundred Dollars, ($30, 500.00), with annual interest of 10%
on any unpaid balance.

This note  shall be paid in one  installment  of Thirty  Thousand  Five  Hundred
Dollars,  ($30,500.00),  plus 10% annual interest and be fully paid on or before
December 31, 2001.

This note may be pre-paid without  penalty.  All payments shall be first applied
to interest and the balance to principal.

All parties to this note waive presentment,  demand and protest, and all notices
thereto.  In the event of  default,  the  undersigned  agree to pay all costs of
collection and reasonable attorney's fees.

                                 Signed this 21st day of December, 2000

                                  By: /s/ John Nielson
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      As Vice President & Secretary On behalf of
                                        The Internet Advisory Corporation

The Internet Advisory Corporation
2455 East Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 301
Ft Lauderdale, Florida 33304

                                       53
# C_2014135EN.01005201.xml

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/52

---

Action brought on 11 February 2014 — EE v OHIM (Device of a coloured pattern)

(Case T-94/14)

2014/C 135/66

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: EE Ltd (Hatfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 November 2013 given in Case R 495/2013-1. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 November 2013 given in Case R 495/2013-1.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative trade mark representing a device of a coloured pattern for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 16, 25, 28, 35-39, 41, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 11 177 631

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Found the mark applied for not eligible for registration

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) CTMR.

Pleas in law:

---