alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Kelvin O’BERRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 81-271.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Dec. 9, 1981.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Thomas R. Mott, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Evelyn D. Golden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dayto-na Beach, for appellee.

SHARP, Judge.

In appealing his judgment and sentence for sexual battery, appellant asserts two procedural trial errors and also contends he should have been sentenced as a youthful offender pursuant to Chapter 958, Florida Statutes (1979). We find no merit to appellant’s first two objections and further determine he failed to present his sentencing argument to the trial court. Accordingly the judgment and sentence are affirmed without prejudice to appellant’s right to *1252seek appropriate relief, *e.g.,*through Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. *See Rubasky v. State,*401 So.2d 894 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); *Dunman v. State,*400 So.2d 838 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).

COBB and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur.
**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105 - 2498

**ME MORA**  **NDUM** SUBJECT: Heavy- Duty Hy brid Onboard Diagnostics FROM: Am y Kopin TO: The Docket DATE: July

21 , 2011 

### On June 21 st 

### , 2011 we held a conference call with Cummins to discuss concerns raised by Cummins regarding heavy - duty onboard diagnostic (OBD) requirements and timing. C ummins raised c oncerns during the comment period for the heavy - duty greenhouse gas notice of proposed rulemaking that heavy - duty hy brid applications may

not be able to meet the 2013 heavy - duty OBD regulations that were published in the 2009 OBD Final Rulemaking . 1 , 2 

### Specifically , their comments include a request for a delay of the application of HD OBD requirements for hy brid applications until 2020. Attendees from th is meeting are shown in the table below. **Attendee Affiliation**  Cleophas Jackson EPA

– Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division Anthony Neam EPA

– Assessment and Standards Division Amy Kopin EPA

– Assessment and Standards Division Mark Stepper Cummins Morgan Andreae Cummins Thoma s A. Dollmeyer Cummins Benjamin J. Zwissler Cummins Bill Ellison Cummins Greg M. Pataky Cummins Hwei Jen Kachler Cummins

1 U.S. EPA, NHTSA, and DOT, “Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium and Heavy - Duty Engines and Vehicles,” republished December 29, 2010. Available here: http://origin.www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR - 2010 - 12 - 29/html/2010 - 32726.htm 2 U.S. EPA, “Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicles Engines; Final Rule Regulations Requir ing Onboard Diagnostic Systems on 2010 and Later Heavy - Duty Engines Used in Highway Applications Over 14,000 Pounds; Revisions to Onboard Diagnostic Requirements for Diesel Highway Heavy - Duty Vehicles Under 14,000 Pounds ,” published February 24, 2009. Ava ilable here: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/im/obd/regtech/hd - obd - frm - 02 - 24 - 09 - notice - 74 - fr - 8310.pdf OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION
§ 412.20 Hospital services subject to the prospective payment systems. ( a ) Except for services described in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) of this section, all covered hospital inpatient services furnished to beneficiaries during the subject cost reporting periods are paid under the prospective payment system as specified in § 412.1(a)(1).
( b ) Effective for cost reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2005, covered inpatient hospital services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries by an inpatient psychiatric facility that meets the conditions of § 412.404 are paid under the prospective payment system described in subpart N of this part.
( c ) ( 1 ) Effective for cost reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2002, covered inpatient hospital services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries by a rehabilitation hospital or rehabilitation unit that meet the conditions of § 412.604 are paid under the prospective payment system described in subpart P of this part.
( 2 ) CMS will not pay for services under subpart P of this part if the services are paid for by a health maintenance organization (HMO) or competitive medical plan (CMP) that elects not to have CMS make payments to an inpatient rehabilitation facility for services, which are inpatient hospital services, furnished to the HMO's or CMP's Medicare enrollees, as provided under part 417 of this chapter.
( d ) Effective for cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 2002, covered inpatient hospital services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries by a long-term care hospital that meets the conditions for payment of §§ 412.505 through 412.511 are paid under the prospective payment system described in subpart O of this part.
( e ) Inpatient hospital services will not be paid under the prospective payment systems specified in § 412.1(a)(1) under any of the following circumstances: ( 1 ) The services are furnished by a hospital (or hospital unit) explicitly excluded from the prospective payment systems under §§ 412.23, 412.25, 412.27, and 412.29.
( 2 ) The services are emergency services furnished by a nonparticipating hospital in accordance with § 424.103 of this chapter.
( 3 ) The services are paid for by an HMO or competitive medical plan (CMP) that elects not to have CMS make payments directly to a hospital for inpatient hospital services furnished to the HMO's or CMP's Medicare enrollees, as provided in §§ 417.240(d) and 417.586 of this chapter.
[50 FR 12741, Mar. 29, 1985, as amended at 53 FR 6648, Mar. 2, 1988; 57 FR 39820, Sept. 1, 1992; 59 FR 45400, Sept. 1, 1994; 66 FR 41386, Aug. 7, 2001; 67 FR 56048, Aug. 30, 2002; 68 FR 45698, Aug. 1, 2003; 69 FR 66976, Nov. 15, 2004]
cue-ex104_732.htm



Certain identified information has been excluded from the exhibit because it is both (i) not material and (ii) would likely cause competitive harm to the Company, if publicly disclosed.  Double asterisks denote omissions.

EXHIBIT 10.4

Second Amendment

to Collaboration, LICENSE and Option Agreement

This Second Amendment (“Second Amendment”), dated as of August 5, 2019 (the “Second Amendment Effective Date”), to the First Amendment to Collaboration, License and Option Agreement, dated March 15, 2019 (for purposes of this Second Amendment only, the “First Amended Agreement”, and as amended hereby, the “Agreement”), by and between Cue Biopharma, Inc., a Delaware corporation, having an address of 21 Erie Street, Cambridge, MA 02139 (“Cue”), and LG Chem Ltd., with its principal place of business at LG Twin Towers, 128, Yeoui-daero, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, 07336, Republic of Korea (“LGC”). Cue and LGC may be referred to herein individually as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties”. 

Whereas, Section 2.11(b) of the First Amended Agreement establishes a term for the Parties to negotiate and agree upon a form of a Global License and Collaboration Agreement that may be executed by the Parties upon exercise by LGC of the Global Option; and

Whereas, the Parties desire to further extend the term provided in Section 2.11(b); 

Now, Therefore, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the mutual covenants contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Cue and LGC hereby agree as follows:


	
 
	
1.
	
Section 2.11(b) of the First Amended Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following in lieu thereof:




(b) Global License and Collaboration Agreement. Within [**], the Parties shall negotiate in good faith a form of license and collaboration agreement substantially in accordance with the term sheet attached hereto as Exhibit C (the “Global License and Collaboration Agreement Term Sheet”), setting forth the terms and conditions of the Global Product License and each Party’s rights and responsibilities relating to the Global Products that will be executed by the Parties upon LGC’s exercise of the Global Option in accordance with Section 2.11(c) (“Global License and Collaboration Agreement”).


	
 
	
2.
	
Except as amended hereby, all other terms and conditions of the First Amended Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, and are unmodified by this First Amendment.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties hereto have caused this Second Amendment to be executed and entered into by their duly authorized representatives as of the Second Amendment Effective Date.

[The Remainder of this page is intentionally left blank. Signatures appear on following page.]

 



 

 


	
CUE BIOPHARMA, INC.
	
 
	
LG CHEM LTD.

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
By:
	
/s/ Daniel Passeri
	
 
	
By:
	
/s/ Jeewoong Son

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Name:
	
Daniel Passeri
	
 
	
Name:
	
Jeewoong Son

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Title:
	
CEO
	
 
	
Title:
	
President




 

 

Page 2 of 2
BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Joint Application of

DELTA AIR LINES, INC. and SOCIÉTÉ AIR FRANCE, et al.

for statements of authorization pursuant to

14 C.F.R. 212 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket OST-2000-6939

NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL CODESHARING

Communications with respect to this document should be addressed to:

Jean-Michel Barthelemy, Vice President – European and International Affairs SOCIÉTÉ AIR FRANCE

45, rue de Paris F-95747, Roissy CDG Cedex Paris, France Alexander Van der Bellen Managing Director – Government Affairs

& Associate General Counsel Jeff Morgan Regional Director – Government Affairs DELTA AIR LINES, INC. 1212 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-4184 sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

June 30, 2011BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Joint Application of

DELTA AIR LINES, INC. and SOCIÉTÉ AIR FRANCE, et al.

for statements of authorization pursuant to

14 C.F.R. 212 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket OST-2000-6939

NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL CODESHARING

Pursuant to the blanket statements of authorization granted to Delta Air Lines,

Inc. (“Delta”), Société Air France (“Air France”), and their respective affiliates, the

carriers hereby notify the Department that, on or a fter 30 days from today, Air France’s

“AF” designator code will be displayed on flights o perated by Delta between New York

(JFK) and Port-au-Prince, Haiti (PAP).

Respectfully submitted,

______________________ Jean-Michel Barthelemy, Vice President – European and International Affairs SOCIÉTÉ AIR FRANCE Alexander Van der Bellen Managing Director, Government Affairs &

Associate General Counsel DELTA AIR LINES, INC.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A copy of the foregoing Notice has been served thi s 30th day of June, 2011, upon the following persons via email:

carl.nelson@aa.com; dan.weiss@coair.com; howard.kas s@usairways.com; benjamin.slocum@usairways.com; esta.rosenberg@dot.g ov; brian.hedberg@dot.gov; info@airlineinfo.com
HomeBosnia and Herzegovina

# Bosnia and Herzegovina

97 items

        -    Special Needs Profile  		Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina: QSI International School of Sarajevo: 2024 Special Needs Profile	  April 11, 2024 
        -    DipNote  		International Women of Courage Amplify Young Generation’s Voices	  March 29, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		Designating Officials for Undermining the Dayton Peace Agreement	  Matthew MillerMarch 13, 2024 
        -    DipNote  		With U.S. Support, Mostar Now Mine-Impact Free Nearly Three Decades After War’s End	  February 27, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary O’Brien’s Travel to Bosnia and Herzegovina	  January 29, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		Welcoming the European Council Decisions on EU Enlargement	  Matthew MillerDecember 14, 2023 
        -    Fact Sheet  		Leveraging Tools to Promote Accountability and Counter Global Corruption	  December 11, 2023 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2022: Bosnia and Herzegovina	  November 29, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		Bosnia and Herzegovina Statehood Day	  Antony J. BlinkenNovember 25, 2023 
        -    Overseas Schools Fact Sheet  		Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina: QSI International School of Sarajevo: 2023-2024 Fact Sheet	  November 2, 2023 

123…10next page

Back to Top
§ 4.5 Use of materials from the collections. ( a ) *Unrestricted materials.* Except as otherwise provided in this section, materials from the collections are generally available to any interested person only in facilities provided by the Library for this purpose. The Director may prescribe additional reasonable rules to assure the most effective use of the Library's resources by health-sciences professionals and to protect the collections from misuse or damage. The rules must be consistent with the regulations in this part and applicable Department regulations and policies on nondiscrimination. Materials in the collections are available upon each request which assures, to the Director's satisfaction, that the materials will be safeguarded from misuse, damage, loss, or misappropriation, and will be returned promptly after use or upon request of the Library.
( b ) *Restricted materials* — ( 1 ) *Historical collection.* Materials from the historical collection are available only as the Director may permit to assure their maximum preservation and protection. Copies of these materials may be made available in the form of microfilm and other copies, for which reasonable fees may be charged.
( 2 ) *Gifts.* Materials in the collections are available only in accordance with any limitations imposed as a condition of the acquisition of those materials, whether the acquisition was by gift or purchase.
( c ) *Loans* — ( 1 ) *General.* Requests for loans of materials must assure the Library that ( i ) the materials will be safeguarded from misuse, damage, loss, or misappropriation and
( ii ) the materials will be returned promptly after use or upon request of the Library. The Library may provide copies in lieu of original materials, which need not be returned unless otherwise stated at the time of the loan.
( 2 ) *Loans of audiovisual materials.* Audiovisual materials are available for loan under the same general terms as printed materials.
( 3 ) *Loans to other libraries.* Upon request materials or copies are available for use through libraries of public or private agencies or institutions. The requesting library must assure that it has first exhausted its own collection resources, those of other local libraries in the geographic area, and those of the Regional Medical Library network (including Regional and Resource Libraries) before making a request for a loan.
( 4 ) *Loans to health-sciences professionals.* The Director may make loans of materials directly to health-sciences professionals. An individual wishing a loan of library materials must assure to the satisfaction of the Director that the individual is geographically isolated, in terms of distance or available transportation, from medical literature resources likely to contain the desired material.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0925-0276)
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-40384

Conference Calendar

__________________

RONNIE SULLIVAN,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DAVID COLE, Captain, TDCJ-ID, Beto I; MITCHELL

L. JOHNSON, Lt., TDCJ-ID, Beto I; SHANNON DACUS,

Officer L-03, TDCJ-ID, Beto I,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:96-CV-155

- - - - - - - - - -

August 20, 1996

Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Ronnie Sullivan, #630453, appeals the district court’s

dismissal, with prejudice, of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights

complaint. The district court correctly held that Sullivan did

not have a due process liberty interest in being upgraded from

administrative-segregation status to a less restrictive custody

status. See Sandin v. Conner, 115 S. Ct. 2293 (1995); Pichardo

v. Kinker, 73 F.3d 612, 613 (5th Cir. 1996). Sullivan’s claim,

raised for the first time in response to the magistrate judge’s
No. 96-40384

-2-

report, that the defendants improperly deprived him of personal

items failed to state a cognizable constitutional claim. Hudson

v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Myers v. Adams, 728 S.W.2d

771, 772 (Tex. 1987). Sullivan’s Eighth Amendment claim was

supported by no factual allegations and was therefore frivolous. 

See Wesson v. Oglesby, 910 F.2d 278, 281 (5th Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED.
# C_2005182EN.01003002.xml

| 23.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/30

---

Action brought on 11 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-207/05)

(2005/C 182/53)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by V. Di Bucci and L. Pignataro, acting as Agents.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed time-limits all measures necessary to recover from the beneficiaries the aid adjudged to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2003/193/EC (1) of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding, C 27/99 (ex NN 69/98), or in any event by not informing the Commission of those provisions, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of that decision and the EC Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed time-limits all measures necessary to recover from the beneficiaries the aid adjudged to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2003/193/EC (1) of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding, C 27/99 (ex NN 69/98), or in any event by not informing the Commission of those provisions, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of that decision and the EC Treaty;

1

| 2. | order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision obliges Italy to take all measures necessary to recover from the beneficiaries the aid granted and unlawfully made available to the beneficiaries under the schemes examined in that decision, and to inform the Commission within two months of notification of the measures taken to comply with it.

Italy has not taken the necessary measures and in any event has not informed the Commission or submitted that it is absolutely impossible to enforce the decision. Recent legislation has allowed the subsequent extension of the time-limits for recovery which do not in any case result in the immediate enforcement of the decision. Moreover, the Commission has always given Italy its full cooperation.

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21 of 24.03.2003.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2



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 Belmont Bancorp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jane R. Marsh, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 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/ Jane R. Marsh      
|Jane R. Marsh          
|Chief Financial Officer
|                       
|November 12, 2004
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Billy TAYLOR v. Warden Frank BLACKBURN, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 66748.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 14, 1980.

In re Billy Taylor, applying for.writ of habeas corpus. Parish of St. Tammany. No. 50-754.

Denied.
#### John L. VISCONTI et ux., Appellants, v. CITY OF TITUSVILLE, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 73-1089.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 24, 1975.

Daniel R. Vaughen, DeLand, for appellants.

Dwight W. Severs, Crofton, Holland & Starling, P. A., Titusville, for appellees.

OWEN, Chief Judge.

Appellants, plaintiffs below, suffered an adverse summary judgment in this action seeking compensatory and punitive damages against the City of Titusyille (and *564two of its employees) for an alleged trespass upon plaintiffs’ property and the willful destruction of certain trees and shrubbery thereon.

Appellants’ action against the City of Titusville was barred by the Statute of Limitations and, thus, the summary judgment in favor of the Defendant-City was proper.

We find no evidence from which the trier of fact might reasonably infer that the individual defendants acted with legal malice and, thus, the summary judgment in their favor as to the claim for punitive damages was proper.

The complaint alleged that the two individual defendants committed certain acts, whereas the proof established that neither one personally committed the alleged acts. On the allegations as they stood, the court was correct in granting summary judgment in favor of the two individual defendants on the claim for compensatory damages. However; prior to the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, appellants had sought leave to amend their complaint by alleging, in the alternative, that the individual defendants “caused the removal [and destruction of valuable trees or shrubbery from the plaintiffs’ property]”. The proposed amendment to the complaint was not inconsistent with the cause of action as • originally pled. From the depositions and affidavits it was clear that a genuine issue of material fact did exist as to whether the individual defendants “had caused or directed others” to do the acts of which plaintiffs complained. We conclude that the court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs the opportunity to amend the complaint in this respect and that on the basis of the allegations as thus amended, summary judgment on the claim for compensatory damages against the individual defendants would not be proper.

The final summary judgment is affirmed in all respects except as to. that part which exonerated the individual defendants-appel-lees, Warden and Beleflower, on plaintiffs’ claim for compensatory damages; as to that portion only, this cause is reversed and remanded with directions that plaintiffs’ proposed amendment to the complaint filed July 27, 1973 be allowed and that the cause thereafter proceed against the individual defendants-appellees on the claim of compensatory damages.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part, and remanded.

CROSS and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.