alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.9

 

A request for confidential treatment has been made with respect to portions of the following document that are marked with [*]. The redacted portions have been filed separately with the SEC.

 

Second Amendment to Patent License Agreement

 

This second amendment to the PATENT LICENSE AGREEMENT, LSU FILE 4-01-09 (hereinafter referred to as the “Second Amendment”) is entered into between the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, a public constitutional corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Louisiana (“LSU”); and Anterios, Inc., a Delaware corporation, with offices located at 60 East 42nd St, New York, New York 10165 (“LICENSEE”); and is made as of September 22, 2014.

 

Background

 

LICENSEE and LSU are parties to a PATENT LICENSE AGREEMENT, LSU FILE 4-01-09 that was effective June 12, 2008 (the “License Agreement”).

 

LICENSEE and LSU desire to amend the License Agreement for the purpose of extending certain terms of the diligence periods.

 

Therefore, LICENSEE and LSU hereby agree as follows:

 

I.                                        Milestone 2 of Paragraph 5.3 of the License Agreement, “Diligence,” is replaced in its entirety with the following:

 

2.                                      The first dosing of a patient with a LICENSED PRODUCT or LICENSED PROCESS in an FDA-approved Phase III clinical trial for the treatment of acne with botulinum toxin, by the [*] anniversary of the Effective Date;

 

II.                                   Milestone 3 of Paragraph 5.3 of the License Agreement, “Diligence,” is replaced in its entirety with the following:

 

3.                                      The FIRST COMMERCIAL SALE of a LICENSED PRODUCT or LICENSED PROCESS, by the [*] anniversary of the Effective Date.

 

III.                              Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Second Amendment, all of the terms and conditions of the License Agreement, as originally drafted, shall remain in full force and effect.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Second Amendment effective as of the date first above written.

 

THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ANTERIOS, INC.

LOUISIANA  STATE UNIVERSITY AND

AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL

COLLEGE

 

	
By:
    	
/s/   Larry H. Hollier
    	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Jon Edelson
    
	
Typed   Name:
    	
Larry   H. Hollier, MD
    	
 
    	
Typed   Name:
    	
Jon   Edelson, MD
    
	
Title:
    	
Chancellor,
    	
 
    	
Title:
    	
CEO &   President
    
	
 
    	
LSUHSC   — New Orleans
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
							


 











 

A request for confidential treatment has been made with respect to portions of the following document that are marked with [*]. The redacted portions have been filed separately with the SEC.

 

	
Date:
    	
9/22/14
    	
 
    	
Date:
    	
September 22,   24
42253.

#### WESTON v. CITY COUNCIL OF AUGUSTA.

Argue© September 8, 1966

Decided December 5, 1966

Rehearing denied December 15, 1966.

*Franklin H. Pierce, John D. Watkins,*for appellant.

*Henry J. Heffernan, Jack E. McGahee,*for appellee.

Pannell, Judge.

1. Where an objection to testimony is made and overruled and thereafter testimony as to the same subject matter is introduced without objection, the overruling of the previous objection to the similar testimony does not constitute reversible error. *State Hwy. Dept. v. Hollis,*106 Ga. App. 669 (127 SE2d 862).

2. That the testimony objected to may have been objectionable for other reasons than those interposed is not ground for reversing the trial court.

3. Where evidence as to the value of other property, as of a time approximately a year after the taking in a condemnation action, is offered and the trial judge ruled out such evidence upon objection made thereto because of the difference in time, he will not be reversed for doing so, where there was no showing that the property testified about was comparable to that condemned, so as to enable this court to determine whether or not the trial judge abused his discretion. See in this connection: *West v. Fulton County,*95 Ga. App. 320 (97 SE2d 785); *Sumner v. State Hwy. Dept.,*110 Ga. App. 646 (139 SE2d 493); *Schrimsher v. State Hwy. Dept.,*110 Ga. App. 705 (140 SE2d 64); *Fulton County v. Elliott,*110 Ga. App. 680 (139 SE2d 527); *Freedman v. Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta,*108 Ga. App. 418 (136 SE2d 544).

4. Upon application of the above ruling to the enumerations of error in the present case complaining of the admission and rejection of evidence, we must hold that the trial court did not err in overruling the condemnee’s motion for new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
Exhibit 99.2

                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 China Resources Development,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Tam Cheuk Ho, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Tam Cheuk Ho
-----------------------
Tam Cheuk Ho
Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2002
SCALE 1:24,000

MOUNT TOM QUADRANGLE

1 0.5 0 1 MILE

1 0.5 0 1 KILOMETER

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

OFFICE OF THE STATE GEOLOGIST

AND EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS

Prepared in cooperation with the OPEN-FILE REPORT 2006-1260-G

Explanatory pamphlet accompanies map

Surficial Geologic Map of the Mount Tom Quadrangle, Massachusetts

Compiled by

Janet R. Stone and Mary L. DiGiacomo-Cohen

2010

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, 1972.

Map was scanned, processed, georeferenced,

rectified, and cropped by the Office of the

Massachusetts State Geologist. Image available online at:

http://www.geo.umass.edu/stategeologist/frame_maps.htm

Map units were reproduced from Larsen (1972).

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

(SHEET 18 of 24)

(WO

R

O

N

O

C

O)

(S

P

RIN

G

FIELD

N

O

R

TH)

(EASTHAMPTON)

(WEST SPRINGFIELD)

72°37'30"W

72°37'30"W

72°45'0"W

72°45'0"W

42°15'0"N

42°15'0"N

42°7'30"N

42°7'30"N

Stone, J.R., and DiGiacomo-Cohen, M.L., compilers, 2010,

Surficial geologic map of the Heath-Northfield-SouthwickHampden 24-quadrangle area in the Connecticut Valley

region, west-central Massachusetts:

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1260-G.

Available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1260/G.
#### § 8.24 Expenses incident to examinations for insurance purposes.

Except as provided in § 8.22, necessary transportation expenses incident to physical or mental examinations for insurance purposes at regional offices or medical facilities shall be furnished when the insured is ordered to report for examination at the specific request of the insurance activity concerned, or the Director of a regional office or of a medical facility. Such expenses will be borne by the United States and will be paid from the applicable appropriation of the Veterans Health Services and Research Administration. Transportation, meal and lodging requests in connection with reporting to and returning from the place of examination may be furnished the applicant, or the applicant may travel at his or her own expense and claim reimbursement for such travel on a mileage basis, provided prior authority has been given for the travel. Travel incident to such an examination by salaried employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs will be in accordance with the Federal Travel Regulations. If such an examination is made by a medical examiner on a fee basis, payment will be made at a fee not in excess of the schedule of fees in effect and approved by the Department of Veterans Affairs for medical and professional services in the State in which the examination is made. Where no approved State fee schedule is in effect or where a fee for the type of examination authorized is not listed in the approved State fee schedule in effect, such examinations will be furnished at a fee not in excess of that listed in the “Guide for Charges for Medical and Ancillary Services” of the Veterans Health Services and Research Administration in effect at the time the examination is authorized. If the particular examination is not covered by a schedule in effect and/or the said guide, a fee not in excess of what is reasonable and customarily charged in the community concerned may be allowed.

[30 FR 3650, Mar. 19, 1965, as amended at 47 FR 11659, Mar. 18, 1982. Redesignated and amended at 61 FR 29290, 29293, June 10, 1996. Redesignated at 65 FR 7437, Feb. 15, 2000; 65 FR 19659, Apr. 12, 2000]
EXHIBIT 99.1
                   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 Quarterly  Report of Research
Frontiers Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
L. Saxe, Chairman of the Board and Chief  Executive 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), as applicable, 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/ Robert L. Saxe
Robert L. Saxe
Chairman of the Board
and Chief Executive Officer
May 14, 2003
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

THOMAS POULTON,

 Appellant,

v.

VERA BARBOSA,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-15-00170-CV

Appeal from

120th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2014-DCV-2757)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is a joint motion to dismiss the appeal because the parties have 

resolved the dispute. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. 

Costs of the appeal are taxed against Appellant. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(d)(“Absent agreement of 

the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant.”).

April 22, 2016

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Housing and Urban Development

          - [Docket No. FR-5300-N-17]

# AGENCY:

Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control, HUD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        HUD announces the availability on its Web site of the application information, submission deadlines, funding criteria, and other requirements for the FY 2009 Healthy Homes Demonstration Program NOFA. The Healthy Homes Demonstration Program NOFA makes $6 million available under the Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-8, approved March 11, 2009). The notice providing information regarding the application process, funding criteria and eligibility requirements is available on the HUD Web site at                         *http://www.hud.gov/​offices/​adm/​grants/​fundsavail.cfm*                         or                         *http://www.hud.gov/​offices/​lead.*                         The Catalogue for Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for the Healthy Homes Demonstration Program is 14.901. Applications must be submitted electronically through                         *OHHLHCNOFAreview@HUD.gov.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For information concerning the Healthy Homes Demonstration Program, contact Warren Friedman, Senior Advisor to the Director, Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 8236, Washington, DC 20410-3000; telephone 202-402-7574 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with speech or hearing impairments may access this telephone number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service during working hours at 800-877-8339.

Dated: September 4, 2009.

 Matthew Ammon,

Acting Director, Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control.

[FR Doc. E9-23226 Filed 9-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
#### FORREST P. TAYLOE v. THE UNITED STATES

Decided February 2, 1925.

[58 C. Cls. 470; 267 U. S. 576]

Judgment was rendered' in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal it was decided:

*Per curiam:*

Judgment *affirmed*on the authority of *Brawley*v. *United*States, 96 U. S. 168, 173; *Willard Company*v. *United*States, 262 U. S. 489, 494.
**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: November 24, 2014 TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants ; Docket Id: OAR

–2013 - 0602 FROM: Region 7 , EPA SUBJECT: August 13 , 2014 , Meeting Regarding Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing

Power Plants **SUMMARY** Karl Brooks of EPA gave a summary presentation on August 13 , 2014 , during the Iowa Association of Business and Industry annual policy

meeting . The majority

of the presentation centered on highlighting the four major building blocks in the Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants . The Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2 , 2014 . **ATTENDEES** EPA Region 7: Karl Brooks Mark A. Smith Othe r Attendees included members of Iowa Association of Business and Industryattendee list not available.
###### Editorial Note on Part 36

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 61 FR 7217, Feb. 27, 1996, and 86 FR 51275, Sept. 15, 2021.

#### § 36.4213 Capacity of parties.

Nothing in the § 36.4200 series shall be construed to relieve any lender of responsibility for any loss caused by lack of legal capacity of any person to contract, sell, convey or encumber, or by the existence of other legal disability or defects invalidating or rendering unenforceable in whole or in part either the loan obligation or the security therefor.
# CA2005235EN.01000101.xml

| 23.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 235/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 235/1

---

NOTICE TO READERS

Image

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7702

SALATHIEL FRANKLIN QUESENBERRY, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

H. L. KIRKPATRICK, III, Judge; KRISTEN KELLER

BURNSIDE; JAMES BARE; STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA;

RALEIGH COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Charles H. Haden II, Chief

District Judge. (CA-01-207-5)

Submitted: April 18, 2002 Decided: April 25, 2002

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Salathiel Franklin Quesenberry, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Salathiel Franklin Quesenberry seeks to appeal the district

court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of the

magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 complaint.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because

Quesenberry’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district

court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App.

P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and

jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434

U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.

220, 229 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on May

16, 2001. Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on September 27,

2001. Because Appellant failed to file a timely notice of appeal

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we

dismiss the appeal. We also deny Quesenberry’s motion for

appointment of counsel, his motion for a hearing, and his motion

objecting to the filing fee. We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
3

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 18.7 Conduct of investigations. ( a ) *Periodic compliance reviews.* The responsible agency official or designee shall from time to time review the practices of recipients to determine whether they are complying with this part.
( b ) *Complaints.* Any person or any specific class of individuals who believe they have been subjected to discrimination prohibited by this part may themselves, or by a representative, file with the responsible agency official or designee a written complaint. A complaint must be filed not later than 180 days from the date of the alleged discrimination unless the time for filing is extended by the responsible agency offical or designee.
( c ) *Investigations.* The responsible agency official or designee will initiate a prompt investigation whenever a compliance review, report, complaint, or any other information indicates a possible failure to comply with this part. The investigation should include, where appropriate, a review of the pertinent practices and policies of the recipient, the circumstances under which the possible noncompliance with this part occurred, and other factors relevant to a determination as to whether the recipient has failed to comply with this part.
( d ) *Resolution of matters.* ( 1 ) If an investigation pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section indicates a failure to comply with this part, the responsible agency official or designee will so inform the recipient and the matter will be resolved by informal means whenever possible. If it has been determined that the matter cannot be resolved by informal means, action will be taken as provided for in § 18.8.
( 2 ) If an investigation does not warrant action pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section the responsible agency official or designee will so inform the recipient and the complainant, if any, in writing.
( e ) *Intimidatory or retaliatory acts prohibited.* No recipient or other person shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or discriminate against any individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by section 601 of the Act or this part, or because the individual has made a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this part. The identity of complainants shall be kept confidential except to the extent necessary to carry out the purposes of this part, including the conduct of any investigation, hearing, or judicial proceeding arising thereunder.
[29 FR 19301, Dec. 31, 1964. Redesignated at 45 FR 63268, Sept. 24, 1980 and amended at 51 FR 10384, Mar. 26, 1986]
Exhibit 10.3

 

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

April 13, 2015

 

THIS AMENDMENT to the Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) by and between INCYTE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and HERVÉ HOPPENOT (the “Executive”), dated as of January 11, 2014.

 

Section 3(e) of the Agreement requires the Company to pay the premiums with respect to a life insurance policy that shall remain in effect for the six-year period beginning on the first day of the Executive’s employment with the Company, and to provide tax gross-ups to the Executive with respect to such premium payments. The Board of Directors of the Company and the Executive have determined to amend the Agreement to eliminate the Company’s obligation to provide such tax gross-ups with respect to premiums paid in 2015 and subsequent years.

 

Therefore, the Company and the Executive hereby agree to amend Section 3(e) of the Agreement to read as follows, effective as of January 1, 2015:

 

(e)           Death or Disability. If the Executive’s employment is terminated during the Employment Period or the Change in Control Employment Period due to the death or Disability of the Executive, this Agreement shall terminate without further obligations to the Executive other than for (i) Accrued Obligations and the timely payment or provision of Other Benefits; and (ii) the Signing Bonus, to the extent not theretofore paid. In such case, all amounts due and owing to the Executive or the Executive’s estate, as the case may be, pursuant to this Section 3(e) shall be paid to the Executive or the Executive’s estate in a lump sum in cash within 30 days of the receipt by the Company of written notice of the Executive’s death from the executor of the Executive’s estate or the Disability Effective Date. The Company shall pay the premiums with respect to an insurance policy that shall remain in place for the six year period commencing on the first day of the Executive’s employment with the Company and shall pay to the Executive’s estate or the Executive, as the case may be, upon the Executive’s death or Disability, the sum of $15 million. If the Executive directs, the Executive and the Company may cause the said insurance policy to be owned by an irrevocable life insurance trust created by the Executive, and, in such event, the Company shall pay the premiums with respect to such insurance policy to the trustee of such trust, when due.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Executive and the Company, through its duly authorized Officer, have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written.

 

	
 
    	
EXECUTIVE
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
/s/ Hervé Hoppenot
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
COMPANY
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
/s/ Paula J. Swain
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
Paula J. Swain
    
	
 
    	
Its:
    	
Executive Vice President