alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w3





Exhibit 10.3






Amendment No. 2 to Distribution Agreement


This
Amendment No. 2 to Distribution Agreement is entered Into effective as of June 30, 2008
(“Amendment Date”) between Inverness Medical Innovations
North America, Inc. (“Inverness”), a
Delaware corporation having a place of business at 30 South Keller
Road, Orlando, Florida 32810 (as successor by assignment from Biosite
Incorporated effective April 1, 2008), and Fisher Healthcare,
a division of Fisher Scientific Company L.L.C (“FHC”), having a place of business at 9999 Veterans
Memorial Drive, Houston, Texas 77038 and amends the Distribution
Agreement between the parties dated
January 1, 2006 (as amended, the “2006 Distribution Agreement”)



     The
parties mutually agree to amend the 2006 Distribution Agreement through this Amendment
No.2 on the terms and conditions below as follows:


     1. Defined
Terms. Any defined terms in this Amendment shall have the same meaning
designated in the 2006 Distribution Agreement unless otherwise expressly provided herein or in
Exhibits A and B of this Amendment.


     2. Extension of Non-Renewal Notice Period. Both parties agree that effective June
30, 2008 Section 6(a)(i) is hereby replaced it in its entirety with the following.



     “(1) unless
Inverness, in Inverness’s sole discretion, gives notice of non-renewal to FHC on
or before 11:59 Eastern Daylight Time July 8, 2008, this Agreement automatically shall be extended
for a period of one (1) year following the expiration of the Initial Term (the “First Extended
Term”), and -



     3.
Assignment. FHC hereby consents to the assignment of the 2008 Distribution
Agreement from Biosite Incorporated to Inverness effective as of
April 1, 2008.


     4. Miscellaneous.
Except as otherwise expressly modified by this Amendment, the 2006
Distribution Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in
accordance with its existing terms.
This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same
instrument. In witness of
their agreement to the foregoing terms, the authorized representatives of each party have executed
this Amendment effective as of the Amendment Date.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Inverness Medical
Innovations North America,	 	 	 	Fisher HealthCare, a division of Fisher Scientific
	Company, L.L.C	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Inc.
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:
	 	/s/ John Bridgen	 	 	 	By:	 	/s/ David Young	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 

	 	 
	Name:
	 	John Bridgen	 	 	 	Name:	 	David Young	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 

	 	 
	Title:
	 	VP, Business Development	 	 	 	Title:	 	VP, Finance	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 

	 	 
	Date:
	 	June 27, 2008	 	 	 	Date:	 	June 27, 2008	 	 






 









 





	 	 	 	 	 
	By:
	 	/s/ Daniel J. Delaney	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 
	Name:
	 	Daniel J. Delaney	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 
	Title:
	 	Vice President	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 
	Date:
	 	June 27, 2008	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 







2
|   |                         | BISNISHome |  Subscribe | Feedback | Contact Us | Site Map |       |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|        LATEST  NEWS
COUNTRYREPORTS
 INDUSTRY REPORTS
   LEADS
  EVENTS      PUBLICATIONSSOURCES OF FINANCECUSTOMSCORNER            U.S.STATE EXPORTS      USEFUL LINKS      
*BISNIS* the NIS market resource at the USA Trade Center     |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### Wunderlich, Appellant, *v.*Pennsylvania Railroad Company.

*Railroads*— Injuries *to property*— Indirect *damages*— Access.

1. A railroad company is not responsible for indirect injuries resulting from the operation of a road upon its own land in a lawful manner without negligence, unskillfulness or malice.

2. A railroad company engaged in operating a railroad is not answerable for deprivation of, or interference with, means of access to property, where it appears that the railroad was constructed by another company, and that any recovery in relation to such deprivation or interference is barred by the statute of limitations.

Argued Oct. 21, 1908.

Appeal, No. 99, Oct. T., 1908, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1905, No. 100, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Christian Wunderlich and Wilhelmina Wunderlich, his wife, in right of said wife, v. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company and the *115Pennsylvania Railroad Company, operating the Allegheny Valley Railroad Company.

Before Mitchell, C. J., Fell, Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for injuries to land. Before Shafer, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.

*Error assigned*was refusal to take off nonsuit.

*H. T. Watson,*with him D. *C. Reardon,*for appellants.

*James S. Crawford,*with him *Patterson, Sterrett & Acheson,*for appellee.

January *4,*1909:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Fell,

The plaintiffs are lessees of a house that adjoins the land of the Allegheny Valley Railroad Company, upon which its tracks were laid at least thirteen years before this action was brought. The action is against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, which had no part in the construction of the road but has operated it since 1900. The grounds of action set out in the statement are that the noise, vibration and dirt caused by the operation of the road injuriously affect the plaintiffs' property, and that safety gates erected on the avenue on which both properties abut interfere with access to the plaintiffs ’ house.

The railroad was constructed wholly on the land of the Allegheny Valley Railroad Company, no part of the plaintiffs' land being taken, and it was not contended that the mode of operation was negligent or in any way unlawful. This branch of the case was ruled by Penna. Railroad Co. v. Lippincott, 116 Pa. 472, and Penna. Railroad Co. v. Marchant, 119 Pa. 541, in which it was held that a railroad cpmpany is not responsible for indirect injuries resulting from the operation of a road upon its own land in a lawful manner without negligence, unskillfulness or malice. For deprivation of or interference with the means of access to the plaintiffs’ property the defendant was *116not answerable, since the road was not built by it, and any recovery in relation thereto was barred by the statute of limitations.

The judgment is affirmed.
<PAGE>


                         Consent of Independent Auditors



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-1343) pertaining to the various stock incentive plans of Systems &
Computer Technology Corporation listed therein and in the related prospectus, in
the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-43535) pertaining to the 1990
Employees' Stock Option Plan of Systems & Computer Technology Corporation and in
the related prospectus, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-56528)
pertaining to the 401(k) Savings Plan of Systems & Computer Technology
Corporation and in the related prospectus, in the Registration Statements (Form
S-8 No. 33-60831 and Form S-8 No. 333-50979) pertaining to the 1994 Long-Term
Incentive Plan and the 1994 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan of Systems &
Computer Technology Corporation and in the related prospectus, in the
Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-37551) and related Prospectus of
Systems & Computer Technology Corporation for the registration of Convertible
Subordinated Debentures Due 2004, and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8
No. 333-56218) pertaining to the 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Systems &
Computer Technology Corporation and in the related prospectus, of our report
dated October 23, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and financial statement schedule of Systems & Computer Technology Corporation
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended September 30,
2002.


/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
December 20, 2002
- PEPFAR Home
- About Us
- Our Priorities
- Where We Work
- Results and Impact
- Partnerships
- Remarks and Releases
- Reports and Guidance

HomeThe United States President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief...PEPFAR Latest Global Results Factsheet (Dec. 2022)

# 									PEPFAR Latest Global Results Factsheet (Dec. 2022)							

December 1, 2022

						Download PEPFAR Latest Global Results Factsheet												[918 KB]

PEPFAR Latest Global Results_December 2022 [918 KB]

#### Download:

PEPFAR Latest Global Results Factsheet (Dec. 2022) [918 KB]

Tags

Global HealthHIV/AIDSThe United States President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 31, 2017

No. 04-17-00285-CV

MEDICAL IMAGING SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. OF TEXAS,

Appellant

v.

WESTLAKE MEDICAL OF AUSTIN, LTD. d/b/a The Hospital at Westlake Medical Center, 

WLMA, LC, Westlake Surgical, LP d/b/a/ The Hospital at Westlake and WS GP, LLC,

Appellees

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CI06112

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On June 26, 2017, Appellant Medical Imaging Solutions Group Inc. of Texas filed a 

petition to review and access sealed records, specifically the clerk’s record, volume 3. On July 

24, 2017, Appellant filed a certificate of conference indicated that he conferred with counsel for 

Appellees Westlake Surgical LP d/b/a The Hospital at Westlake and WS GP, LLC, and that 

counsel for both parties agree the parties “should and need access to the sealed records that are 

part of the Clerk’s Record filed in this matter.” Accordingly, Appellant’s motion is GRANTED, 

and the attorneys are directed to contact the Clerk of this court to make arrangements to review 

the sealed record. All parties and their attorneys are ORDERED: (1) to fully comply with the 

instructions provided by the Clerk of this court regarding their access to the sealed record; and 

(2) not to share the contents of the sealed record with any person except to the extent necessary 

to prepare their respective briefs.

In the event Appellant or Appellees reference the sealed record in their respective briefs, 

they are ORDERED to (1) file their respective briefs in paper form only, (2) with a cover letter 

informing the Clerk of this court that the brief references the sealed record. See TEX. R. APP. P.

9.2(c)(3) (exception to electronic filing for documents under seal).

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 31st day of July, 2017.

___________________________________

Luz Estrada

Chief Deputy Clerk
§ 484.360 Calculation of the Total Performance Score. A competing HHA's Total Performance Score for a performance year is calculated as follows: ( a ) CMS awards points to the competing home health agency for performance on each of the applicable measures. ( 1 ) CMS awards greater than or equal to 0 points and less than 10 points for achievement to each competing home health agency whose performance on a measure during the applicable performance year meets or exceeds the applicable cohort's achievement threshold but is less than the applicable cohort's benchmark for that measure.
( 2 ) CMS awards greater than 0 but less than 9 points for improvement to each competing home health agency whose performance on a measure during the applicable performance year exceeds the improvement threshold but is less than the applicable cohort's benchmark for that measure.
( 3 ) CMS awards 10 points to a competing home health agency whose performance on a measure during the applicable performance year meets or exceeds the applicable cohort's benchmark for that measure.
( b ) For all performance years, CMS calculates the weighted sum of points awarded for each applicable measure within each category of measures (OASIS-based, claims-based, and HHCAHPS Survey-based) weighted at 35 percent for the OASIS-based measure category, 35 percent for the claims-based measure category, and 30 percent for the HHCAHPS survey measure category when all three measure categories are reported, to calculate a value worth 100 percent of the Total Performance Score. ( 1 ) Where a single measure category is not included in the calculation of the Total Performance Score for an individual HHA, due to insufficient volume for all of the measures in the category, the remaining measure categories are reweighted such that the proportional contribution of each remaining measure category is consistent with the weights assigned when all three measure categories are available. Where two measure categories are not included in the calculation of the Total Performance Score for an individual HHA, due to insufficient volume for all measures in those measure categories, the remaining measure category is weighted at 100 percent of the Total Performance Score.
( 2 ) When one or more, but not all, of the measures in a measure category are not included in the calculation of the Total Performance Score for an individual HHA, due to insufficient volume for at least one measure in the category, the remaining measures in the category are reweighted such that the proportional contribution of each remaining measure is consistent with the weights assigned when all measures within the category are available.
( c ) The sum of the weight-adjusted points awarded to a competing HHA for each applicable measure is the competing HHA's Total Performance Score for the calendar year. A competing HHA must have a minimum of five applicable measures to receive a Total Performance Score.
**Exhibit      32**

**Section      1350 Certifications**

| Date:                February 17,                2006 |                                                                         |                                                         |
|-------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                  |                                                                         |
|                                                  |                                                                    | /s/ Roger                E.                Girard  |
|                                                  | Roger                    E. GirardChief                    Executive Officer |

| Date:                    February 17,                    2006 |                                                                                   |                                          |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                                                          |                                                                                   |
|                                                          |                                                                              | /s/ Michael                    K. Dunlop |
|                                                          | Michael                        K. DunlopChief                        Financial Officer |

----
#### GENERAL ACCIDENT FIRE & LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION, LTD., Appellant, v. Valeriano BUILES and Leticia Builes and Maria Araque and Beatriz Araque, Appellees.

No. 78-1735.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 15, 1979.

John W. Conness, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellant.

Abramson, Mendigutia, Diamond & Schwartz and Paula L. Schwartz, Miami, for appellees.

Before HENDRY, HUBBART and KE-HOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Manning v. Travelers Insurance Co.,*250 So.2d 872, 873-74 (Fla.1971); *Moore v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co.,*277 So.2d 839, 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); § 627.727(3), Fla.Stat. (1973).
#### Buford Lee JENRETTE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 78-2258.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 7, 1979.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Paul Mendel-son, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HENDRY and HUBBART, JJ., and . CHAPPELL, BILL G., Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The judgments of conviction and sentences appealed from are affirmed without prejudice to the defendant to attack the lawfulness of his sentence for unlawful display of a firearm during the commission of a felony by applying to the trial court for post-conviction relief under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 based on the authority of *Engel v. State,*353 So.2d 593 (Fla.3d DCA 1977).
#### MORRISDALE COAL COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.

[55 C. Cls. 310; 259 U. S. 188.]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant in the court below. On plaintiff’s appeal the judgment was affirmed, and the Supreme Court decided:

Where a mining company has outstanding contracts with private parties calling for more coal than the actual production of its mines at an agreed price per ton, and certain consignments of its coal are diverted from the consignees by the Government to other private parties from whom the company receives therefor a smaller price per ton fixed by the Fuel Administration, there is no taking of private property for public use within the purview of the fifth amendment from which a promise by the Government to pay such company just compensation can be implied.

The remedy, if any, for the diversion of private property from the use of one person to that of another by the Government, and the fixing by the Fuel Administration of a price at which it shall be sold, is under section 145, Judicial Code, giving the Court of Claims jurisdiction of claims upon any contract, express or implied, with the Government.

Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court May 29, 1922.
*

The Hon. Jerome Farris, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation. 

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 04a0166n.06

Filed: December 16, 2004

04-1176

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CHAD M. ELVE,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF

MICHIGAN

Before: SILER, SUTTON, and FARRIS,*

 Circuit Judges.

FARRIS, Circuit Judge. We understand but reject Elve’s argument that the

district court erred in enhancing his sentence by two levels for more than minimal

planning. An enhancement for more than minimal planning is warranted if a

defendant takes significant affirmative steps to conceal his offense. Here, Elve
2

provided false information on his loan application and thereby concealed that he had

illegally obtained the HUD-owned property. He also provided his bank with a false

warranty deed, which incorrectly showed that he had purchased the property for

$70,000. The district court did not commit clear error in concluding that Elve took

significant steps to avoid detection of his crime. 

AFFIRMED.
| **Anne Grey -  Director**                202-482-2299A[email protected] | **Trevor Gunn**-  **Deputy Director**                202-482-4656[email protected]***Industry Sectors:***  Automotive; Forest Products; Power Generation; Telecommunications |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| *For      General Inquiries for BISNIS please email:*[email protected]  |
#### MILLER V. THE STATE.

(Decided June 6, 1911.)

Appeal from Gadsden City Court.

Heard before Hon. A. H. Alston.

S. W. Johnson, for appellant.

R. C. Briokell, Attorney General, for the State.

db Grapfenried, >J.

No error appears of record. Affirmed.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Bonorablr George Ii. Sheppard 

canptroller of Publle boaount8 

Austin, Toxa8 

oonflnod to that quwJt%o& 

Arbiol. XVI, 300t1on 66, Con8tltutlon of Tams, prohlbib8 tha aooouxbtlla6 Offl8OP8 of ttctll stat0 from drawing or 
paying a warrant upon th4 Tr4arury ia “favw of w prrscnr 

ior salary or ocnupsn6atlon 98 an peent, otflaar “fL;ph~ix$O 

wha hold6 at the 08m4 time &uy oth4r offioo w pa . 

honor, trust or profit under this StGe or t;he lhrited State6 I 

. . . . Bnphamllir mipplhd). 

husQ fraa tha state w Pod wd (80 tbi *ot tat a vetsran reoeLv*r Qevwment, a8 provided ln $2~ 

trndw Artiala 44lS
TheHonorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of * Nebraska, sitting by designation. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-3833ND

_____________ Maryann B. Posl, * * Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the District of * North Dakota. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of * Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: April 13, 1998

Filed: April 22, 1998

_____________ Before FAGG and HANSEN, Circuit Judges, and STROM, District Judge. *

_____________ PER CURIAM. Maryann B. Posl appeals the district court's grant of summary ju dgment upholding the Commissioner's decision to deny Posl disabil ity insurance and supplemental security income benfits. After careful reviewof the administrative record and the parties' briefs, we conclude substantial evidence supports the decision of the Commissioner that Posl is not disabled for Social Security purposes and the judgment of the district court i s correct. This case presents no novel issues to justify an extended-2-

disc ussion. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court' s memorandum and order. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.