alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.38






Exhibit 10.38




AMENDMENT NO. 2




TO




LICENSE AGREEMENT




          THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 (“Amendment No. 2”) to the AGREEMENT (as defined below) is entered into
as of 22 October, 2008 by and between ASTRAZENECA AB, a company incorporated under the laws of
Sweden with its registered office at SE-151 85 Södertälje, Sweden (“ASTRAZENECA”) and The MEDICINES
COMPANY, a company incorporated under the laws of Delaware with its registered office at 8 Campus
Drive, Parsippany, New Jersey 07054, United States (“TMC”).




WITNESSETH:




          WHEREAS, the parties hereto are parties to that certain License Agreement regarding
clevidipine effective as of March 28, 2003 and as amended on April 25, 2006 (the “Agreement”); and




          WHEREAS, the parties desire to further amend the Agreement as set forth herein.




          NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:





	1.	 	Capitalized terms used herein but not otherwise defined herein, shall have the meanings provided in the Agreement.






	2.	 	Article 3.7.2 is amended and restated as follows:





          “3.7.2 Time Limit for Filing an NDA.





	 	(a)	 	TMC shall no later than 30 September 2007 have made a Filing of an NDA in the
United States.
	 
	 	(b)	 	TMC shall no later than 30 September 2009 have made a filing of an NDA in all
the additional Major Markets, except as provided for in Article 3.7.2(c).
	 
	 	(c)	 	TMC shall no later than 31 December 2010 have made a Filing of an NDA in
Japan.”






	3.	 	This Amendment No. 2 shall be deemed to be part of the Agreement and, as modified in
accordance herewith, the Agreement is hereby ratified and declared in full force and effect.
This Amendment No. 2 shall be effective as of the date first written above.





 









 





Exhibit 10.38




          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment No. 2 has entered into force as of the date first written
above.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	ASTRAZENECA AB (publ)	 	THE MEDICINES COMPANY
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Gunnar Olsson
	 	By:
	 	/s/ John Kelley
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Name: Gunnar Olsson
	 	 	 	Name: John Kelley
	 

	 	Title: VP & Head of CVGI Therapy Area
	 	 	 	Title: President and Chief Operating Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000727634
<NAME>                        Communication Intelligence Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     USD
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                          5,164
<SECURITIES>                                    2,481
<RECEIVABLES>                                     656
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                       845
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                9,392
<PP&E>                                            582
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 10,652
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           3,150
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         5
<COMMON>                                          420
<OTHER-SE>                                          0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   10,652
<SALES>                                           765
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                1,198
<CGS>                                             901
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   3,206
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (421)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (17)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     0
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,775)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.11)
        


</TABLE>
**~\\l'Oosr'i?'~** UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ."

...... <5'. REGION 10

### ~**-~** \) 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900

### ~.'ffi 'i (!) Seattle, WA 98101-3140**~** 

### 0;

'I?- -<."**~l PRQ"'\~0**  . " 'L, '," ;**~** '/-.' '\,; i**~** ; i(JXt!" 

# AUG 2 52011

Mr. Martin Baller. Air Quality Division Administrator Idaho Department ofEnvironmental Quality State Office 1410 N. Hilton Boise. Idaho 83706
Dear Mr. Bauer: This Jeller is in response to ynur August 

### 8. 20 J 

### I submittal titled "Certirkation of State Implementation Plan Adequacy Regarding Clean Air Act Section J 10(a)( I) and (2) ror the 2006 24-Hour PM 2; National Ambient Air Quality Standard." The suhlllillul is intended to demonstrate that the State of Idaho has all necessary authority. resources. and personnel to implement**~md satis'~lctorily**  complete the air quality management requirements set forth in section IIO(a)( I) and (2) ofthe Clean Air Act with respect 10 the 2(X)6 24-hour**PM~5** NAAQS.
We have performed a complctene'>s review oryour suhmittal against the completeness criteria set forlh al 40CFR Part 51, Appendix V. We have determined lhat this SIP submittal satisfies the completeness criteria and have initiated processing of your rL'quest.
A finding ofcompleteness merely indicates that the submittal meets the criteria that any phll1 must satisfy for the U.S. Environmenlal Protection Agency 10 take rulemaking action Oil it. A completeness finding is nllt a finding on the merits ofthe plan orwhether it lI1eets the EPA's SIP approval requirements.
If you or members

## or your slall have any qucstions on this topic. please contact Krislin Hull at (20tn 553-6357 or via cmail al huILkristin(g)epa.gov

. Sincerely.

Richard Alhright, Director Ofnce ofAir, WasIl' and Toxics

Cc: Rohert Wilkosx. Idaho DEQ



## Q Ptfnletlon RecycletlPeper
HomeFY 2019 Department of State Agency Financial Report...Long Description for the FY 2019 State Department Employees Bar Chart

# 									Long Description for the FY 2019 State Department Employees Bar Chart							

Bureau of the Comptroller and Global Financial Services

January 17, 2020

Bar chart of State employees for 2016-2019 broken down by Foreign Service, Civil Service, Eligible Family Members1 and Locally Employed Staff2. Values are as follows in thousands:

**FY 2016:**

Foreign Service: 14.Civil Service: 11.Eligible Family Members: 2.Locally Employed Staff: 50.

**FY 2017:**

Foreign Service: 14.Civil Service: 11.Eligible Family Members: 2.Locally Employed Staff: 50.

**FY 2018:**

Foreign Service: 14.Civil Service: 10.Eligible Family Members: 2.Locally Employed Staff: 50.

**FY 2019:**

Foreign Service: 14.Civil Service: 10.Eligible Family Members: 2.Locally Employed Staff: 50.

----

1 Eligible Family Members include State only eligible family members and do not include the inactive reserves. (back to text)

2 Locally Employed Staff includes Foreign Service Nationals and Personal Services Agreements. (back to text)

Back to Text

Back to Top
§ 484.240 Outlier payments. ( a ) For episodes beginning on or before December 31, 2019, an HHA receives an outlier payment for an episode whose estimated costs exceeds a threshold amount for each case-mix group. The outlier threshold for each case-mix group is the episode payment amount for that group, or the PEP adjustment amount for the episode, plus a fixed dollar loss amount that is the same for all case-mix groups.
( b ) For periods beginning on or after January 1, 2020, an HHA receives an outlier payment for a 30-day period whose estimated cost exceeds a threshold amount for each case-mix group. The outlier threshold for each case-mix group is the 30-day payment amount for that group, or the partial payment adjustment amount for the 30-day period, plus a fixed dollar loss amount that is the same for all case-mix groups.
( c ) The outlier payment is a proportion of the amount of imputed cost beyond the threshold.
( d ) CMS imputes the cost for each claim by multiplying the national per-15 minute unit amount of each discipline by the number of 15 minute units in the discipline and computing the total imputed cost for all disciplines.
[83 FR 56630, Nov. 13, 2018]
Editorial Note on Part 457
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 457 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010 and 77 FR 17213, 2013.

§ 457.1203 Rate development standards and medical loss ratio. ( a ) A state must use payment rates based on public or private payment rates for comparable services for comparable populations, consistent with actuarially sound principles as defined at § 457.10. This requirement for using actuarially sound principles to develop payment rates does not prohibit a state from implementing value-based purchasing models for provider reimbursement, such as pay for performance arrangements, bundled payments, or other service payment models intended to recognize value or outcomes over volume of services; such alternate payment models should be developed using actuarially sound principles to the extent applicable.
( b ) A State may establish higher rates than permitted under paragraph (a) of this section if such rates are necessary to ensure sufficient provider participation or provider access or to enroll providers who demonstrate exceptional efficiency or quality in the provision of services.
( c ) The rates must be designed to reasonably achieve a medical loss ratio standard, calculated in accordance with the provisions of § 438.8 of this chapter, that— ( 1 ) Is equal to at least 85 percent for the rate year; and
( 2 ) Provides for reasonable administrative costs.
( d ) The State must provide to CMS, if requested, a description of the manner in which rates were developed in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) of this section.
( e ) The State must comply with the requirements related to medical loss ratios in accordance with the terms of § 438.74 of this chapter, except contract arrangements described in § 438.6(c) do not apply and the description of the reports received from the MCOs, PIHPs and PAHPs under § 438.8(k) of this chapter will be submitted independently, and not with the rate certification described in § 438.7 of this chapter.
( f ) The State must ensure, through its contracts, that each MCO, PIHP, and PAHP complies with the requirements in § 438.8 of this chapter, except that contract arrangements described in § 438.6(c) do not apply.
[81 FR 27897, May 6, 2016, as amended at 82 FR 40, Jan. 3, 2017; 89 FR 41285, May 10, 2024]
IIA

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3572

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 19, 1996

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

AN ACT

To designate the bridge on United States Route 231 which

crosses the Ohio River between Maceo, Kentucky, and

Rockport, Indiana, as the ‘‘William H. Natcher Bridge’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3572 RFS

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The bridge on United States Route 231 which crosses

3 the Ohio River between Maceo, Kentucky, and Rockport,

4 Indiana, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘William

5 H. Natcher Bridge’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the bridge

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

10 to the ‘‘William H. Natcher Bridge’’.

Passed the House of Representatives June 18, 1996.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Kazakhstan’s Republic Day

# 									Kazakhstan’s Republic Day							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

October 24, 2022

On behalf of the United States of America, I share our warmest congratulations to the people of Kazakhstan on their newly designated Republic Day on October 25. The United States is committed to Kazakhstan’s sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity, and we look forward to further strengthening our relationship in the years to come.

Republic Day commemorates Kazakhstan’s declaration of independence. Since that independence, Kazakhstan has been a champion of non-proliferation, disarmament, and global dialogue and has advanced efforts in international peace and security. The United States strongly supports Kazakhstan’s reform agenda and encourages its full implementation through concrete, transparent actions. Kazakhstan is a valued economic and commercial partner at the heart of Central Asia, and we appreciate the active role it plays in advancing shared goals in the region.

The United States was one of the first countries to recognize Kazakhstan’s independence, and we are proud of our enduring 31 years of friendship with the people of Kazakhstan. Together, we will continue to advance our shared priorities of peace, prosperity, and stability in the region and beyond.

Tags

Bureau of South and Central Asian AffairsKazakhstanOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of StateSovereignty

Back to Top
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,132,011
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,132,011
<PP&E>                                      22,395,185
<DEPRECIATION>                              19,761,080
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,766,116
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          439,971
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,326,145
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,766,116
<SALES>                                     24,075,260
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            24,238,144
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,296,735
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             22,941,409
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                22,941,409
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.57
        

</TABLE>
#### Acker, Merrall & Condit, Appellant, *v.*Edmund Saynisch, Respondent.

Appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the General Term of the City Court of the city of New York, reversing an order of the Special Term, denying a motion made by subsequent judgment creditors to vacate the attachment theretofore granted herein.

James Forrest (John Freeman Baker, of counsel), for appellant.

M. A. Kursheedt (Joseph Fettretch, of counsel), for respondent.

MacLean, J.

The warrant of attachment was applied for and allowed herein upon the specific ground, that the defendant, a resident of the city of New York, had departed therefrom with intent to defraud his creditors. § 3169, Code Civ. Pro. In support thereof, it was necessary that the facts requisite to confer jurisdiction upon the court or judge be shown by the affidavit of a person primarily having knowledge of the facts set forth. In this instance, however, all the statements as of fact were made upon information and belief without reciting either the names of the informants or any excuse for the absence of their affidavits. The objection that the motion to set aside the attachment was made, not by the defendant, but by judgment creditors, was not good, as it was shown that the moving parties had obtained their judgment and so acquired a lien upon the defendant’s property after it was attached, and that their application to vacate the warrant was made before the actual application of the proceeds of the *837attached property, to the payment of the judgment in the action of the plaintiff. '§ 682, Code Civ. Pro.

The order of the General Term of the City Courts should be affirmed, with costs.

Freedman, P. J., and Leventritt, J., concur.

Order affirmed, with costs.
#### § 440.386 Public notice.

Prior to submitting to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for approval of a State plan amendment to establish an Alternative Benefit Plan or an amendment to substantially modify an existing Alternative Benefit Plan, a state must have provided the public with advance notice of the amendment and reasonable opportunity to comment for such amendment, and have included in the notice a description of the method for assuring compliance with § 440.345 related to full access to EPSDT services, and the method for complying with the provisions of section 5006(e) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

[78 FR 42307, July 15, 2013]
#### Sandra M. SMITH, Appellant, v. Lynn E. SMITH, Appellee.

No. TT-311.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 9, 1980.

Michael Jones, of Selby, Chesser, Win-gard, Barr & Jones, Fort Walton Beach, for appellant.

Patricia S. Warren, Fort Walton Beach, for appellee.

LILES, WOODIE A., Associate Judge (Retired).

The Wife appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, contending that the trial court erred by failing to require the Husband to pay one-half of the ownership expenses on the home during its use and occupancy by the Wife and the minor children; by ordering that one-half of the monthly mortgage payments, taxes, and hazard insurance premiums on the marital home required to be paid by the Wife during her exclusive occupancy will be considered “fair rental” for the use of the Husband’s one-half interest in the property; by awarding only $350.00 per month child support; and by failing to award the Wife’s attorney a reasonable fee for his representation of her in the dissolution of marriage proceedings.

The trial court’s order, in pertinent part, provides:

> The Respondent [husband] shall pay to the Petitioner [wife] as and for rehabilitative alimony, a sum equal to one-half of the monthly house payment, including the escrow payment for taxes and insurance, for a period of one (1) year from the *1224date of this decree or until she remarries or moves out of the house, whichever first occurs.

> The Petitioner is awarded exclusive possession of the marital homeplace . .. so long as she remains unmarried and maintains the home for the minor children of the parties. The title to the marital homeplace shall be in joint names as tenants in common, and the Petitioner will be required to maintain the mortgage payments, taxes and hazard insurance upon the home during her exclusive occupancy. One-half of the monthly payments will be considered “fair rental” for the use of the Respondent’s one-half interest in the property.

By ordering that one-half of the monthly payments will be considered “fair rental” for the use of the Husband’s one-half interest in the property, the trial court is impermissibly requiring the Wife to build her husband’s equity in the property. *Waskin v. Waskin,*346 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977); *Singer v. Singer,*342 So.2d 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). On the contrary, a wife who pays all the ownership expenses on jointly-owned property is entitled to a credit against the husband’s one-half of the proceeds upon the sale of the property. *Rubino v. Rubino,*372 So.2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); *See Schatz v. Schatz,*356 So.2d 892 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978). Therefore, we direct that the judgment be amended to provide that the Wife is entitled to a credit against the Husband’s one-half of the proceeds upon the sale of the jointly-owned property-

Considering the circumstances of this case, we find no error in the trial court’s award of child support or in its award of attorney’s fees to the Wife. Accordingly, the judgment as herein amended is AFFIRMED.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr. and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
#### Arthur Lee BURNS, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Respondent.

No. 00-432.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 30, 1979.

Milo I. Thomas, Jr., Public Defender, and Jimmy E. Hunt, Asst. Public Defender, Lake City, for petitioner.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Charles A. Stampelos, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for habeas corpus (delayed appeal) is GRANTED. *Hollingshead*v. *Wainwright,*194 So.2d 577 (Fla.1967). The appeal is without merit. Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(g).

AFFIRMED.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Acting C. J., and ERVIN and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*ANTHONY ODEN

*Frank P. Cannatelli,*in support of the petition.

*Denise B. Smoker,*deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided January 23, 1997

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 43 Conn. App. 480 (AC 15419), is denied.
§ 488.10 State survey agency review: Statutory provisions. ( a ) Section 1864(a) of the Act requires the Secretary to enter into an agreement with any State that is able and willing to do so, under which appropriate State or local survey agencies will determine whether: ( 1 ) Providers or prospective providers meet the Medicare conditions of participation or requirements (for SNFs and NFs);
( 2 ) Suppliers meet the conditions for coverage; and
( 3 ) Rural health clinics meet the conditions of certification.
( b ) Section 1865(a) of the Act provides that if an institution is accredited by a national accrediting organization recognized by the Secretary, it may be deemed to have met the applicable conditions or requirements.
( c ) Section 1864(c) of the Act authorizes the Secretary to enter into agreements with state survey agencies for the purpose of conducting validation surveys in institutions accredited by an accreditation program recognized by the Secretary.
( d ) Section 1865(c) provides that an accredited institution that is found after a validation survey to have significant deficiencies related to health and safety of patients will no longer meet the applicable conditions or requirements.
[53 FR 22859, June 17, 1988, as amended at 56 FR 48879, Sept. 26, 1991; 58 FR 61842, Nov. 23, 1993; 62 FR 46037, Aug. 29, 1997; 80 FR 29839, May 22, 2015]