alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.39

                           EXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT

This Exclusive License Agreement (this "AGREEMENT") entered into as of the 14th
day of October, 2005 by and between MEMORY PHARMACEUTICALS CORP., a Delaware
corporation, having its principal place of business at 100 Philips Parkway,
Montvale, New Jersey 07645 ("MEMORY"), and AMGEN INC., a Delaware corporation,
having its principal place of business at One Amgen Center Drive, Thousand Oaks,
California 91320 ("AMGEN").

      Whereas, Memory owns all right title and interest in and to the patents
and patent applications set forth on Schedule 1 hereto (the "LICENSED PATENTS");

      Whereas, Amgen and Memory are parties to that certain Collaboration and
License Agreement dated October 14, 2005 (the "LICENSE AGREEMENT");

      Whereas, Memory desires to grant Amgen an exclusive license to the
Licensed Patents on the terms and conditions set forth in the License Agreement.

      NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual representations, warranties
and covenants contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration,
and intending to be legally bound, the parties hereby agree as follows:

1. Grant of License. Memory hereby grants Amgen an exclusive license to the
Licensed Patents for all uses, including prophylaxis, palliative, diagnostic,
and therapeutic, on the terms and conditions set forth in the License Agreement.

2. Further Assurances. Memory shall take all actions and execute all documents
necessary for Amgen to perfect its rights hereunder. Amgen shall reimburse
Memory for any out of pocket costs incurred in connection therewith.

3. Recordal. Amgen shall have the right to record this Agreement as necessary to
perfect its interest herein, including with the United States Patent and
Trademark Office and similar offices in other countries throughout the world.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have each caused a duly authorized
officer to sign this Agreement.

AMGEN INC.                                 MEMORY PHARMACEUTICALS CORP.

By: /s/ Roger M. Perlmutter                By:/s/  James R. Sulat
    -----------------------------------       ---------------------------------
Name:  Roger M. Perlmutter, M.D., Ph.D.    Name:  James R. Sulat
Title: Executive Vice President,           Title:  President & CEO
Research and Development
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 Tower Financial Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard R. Sawyer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





/s/ Richard R. SawyerRichard R. SawyerChief Financial OfficerApril 29, 2011
TRANSFER TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL CORP.





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Transfer Technology International Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Chris Trina, Chief Executive Officer and 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 results of operations of the Company.


/s/ Chris Trina


Chris TrinaChief Executive Officer

Chief Financial OfficerApril 15, 2011





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Transfer Technology International Corp. and will be retained by Transfer Technology International Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
exv10w3





Exhibit
10.3


Second Amendment To

Purchase and Sale Agreement

And Joint Escrow Instructions

(TSG — LITTLE VALLEY)




     THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW
INSTRUCTIONS (this “Amendment”), dated as of October 15, 2009, is by and between TSG
LITTLE VALLEY, LP, a California limited partnership
(“Seller”), and SPT-LAKE ELSINORE HOLDING CO.,
LLC (“Buyer”) (as successor-in-interest by assignment to Shopoff Advisors, L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership), and amends that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions
dated as of September 30, 2008, as previously amended (as amended, the “Agreement”). Capitalized
terms used herein shall have the meanings given them in the Agreement.



     Seller and Buyer agree to amend the Agreement as follows:



     Two Million Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,900,000.00) of the Purchase Price shall be paid
by Buyer’s execution and delivery into Escrow of (i) an All-Inclusive Purchase Money Note Secured
by Deed of Trust in favor of Seller as Payee therein, in the principal amount of Two Million Nine
Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,900,000.00), and (ii) an All-Inclusive Deed of Trust executed by Buyer
in favor of Seller as Beneficiary therein, securing the foregoing All-Inclusive Purchase Money
Note.



     In all other respects the Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect.



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



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	SELLER:	 	TSG LITTLE VALLEY, L.P., a California limited partnership
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	 	Pelaton Partners, Inc.,
a California limited partnership
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	By:	 	Portfolio Partners, Inc.,
a California corporation
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	By: 	 	/s/ Stevan J. Gromet 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	Stevan J. Gromet, President
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	SHOPOFF ADVISORS, L.P.
a Delaware limited partnership
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	 	The Shopoff
Corporation, a Delaware corporation,

Its General Partner
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	By:	 	/s/ William A. Shopoff 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	William A. Shopoff,
 President
#### BROWN in re

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 10018.

Decided April 29, 1929

Gentsch & Lang, Cleveland, for Petitioner.

Carl F Shuler, Cleveland, for City of Cleveland.

LEVINE, J.

We are cited by the petitioner to the case of Brannon v. City of Wilmington (7 Abs. 136) which was decided by the First. Appellate District of Ohio July 16, 1928. The identical question was before that court. The court held that since the ordinance was in conflict with the express provisions of Section 3628 GC. that therefore it is null and void, and of no effect. In the opinion the court reviews a great many adjudicated cases throughout the country and cites the same in support of its holding.

Counsel for the City of Cleveland seeks to draw a distinction between charter cities and non-charter cities, and it is claimed in behalf of the city that Sec. 3628 GC. is an old section which preceded the adoption of the Home Rule Amendment to the Constitution under which charter cities are organized, and that it must be construed merely to limit the power of non-charter cities and villages in the prescribing of penalties for violations of ordinances; that since charter cities derive their power directly from the Constitution, they are not subject to the limitation contained in Sec. 3628 GC. The power of a municipality to enact police regulations is vested in them by Sec. 3, Article 18 of the Ohio Constitution.

It has been held that since the adoption of this section of the Constitution, all municipalities, chartered as well as non-chartered, derive their power of self-government from the Constitution. Perrysburg v. Ridgeway, 108 Oh. St. 245.

Municipalities of Ohio are authorized to adopt local police, sanitary, and other similar regulations by virtue of Art. 18, Sec. 3, of the Constitution and are subject to no limitations of the General Assembly except that such ordinances shall not be in conflict with general laws. Village of Struthers v. Sokol, 108 Oh. St. 263. The power of the municipality to adopt a charter is contained in Sec. 7, Art. 18 of the Constitution.

Since the power to adopt ordinances in the nature of police regulations, is derived by all municipalities, chartered as well as non-chartered, from Sec. 3, Article 18 of the Ohio Constitution, the distinction sought to be drawn between chartered and non-chartered municipalities, in the enactment of ordinances and the providing of penalties seems to us not well taken.

We are of the opinion that the ordinance under which the petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced, is in direct conflict with Sec. 3628 GC., in that it violates its express prohibition that fines shall not exceed $500.00 and that the ordinance is, for that reason, invalid, null and void, and of no effect.

The writ is therefore ordered allowed, and the petitioner ordered discharged from custody. A journal entry may be drawn accordingly.

Vickery, PJ and Sullivan, J, concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*John H. Becker, Appellant.

(Submitted September 28, 1936;

decided September 30, 1936.)

*504
      *Charles P. Sullivan, District Attorney (John H. W. Krogmann*of counsel), for motion.

*Harry Gittleson*opposed.

Motion denied.
§ 10.53 Referral to Chief Administrative Law Judge; amendment of pleadings. ( a ) Upon receipt of a timely request for a hearing under § 10.51 (where the Administrator has determined that relevant facts are in dispute) or § 10.52 (debarment), the Administrator shall refer the case to the Chief Administrative Law Judge by Order of Reference, to which shall be attached a copy of the investigative findings letter from the Administrator and response thereto, for designation of an Administrative Law Judge to conduct such hearings as may be necessary to decide the disputed matters. A copy of the Order of Reference and attachments thereto shall be served upon the respondent. The investigative findings letter from the Administrator and response thereto shall be given the effect of a complaint and answer, respectively, for purposes of the administrative proceedings.
( b ) At any time prior to the closing of the hearing record, the complaint (investigative findings letter) or answer (response) may be amended with the permission of the Administrative Law Judge and upon such terms as he/she may approve. For proceedings pursuant to § 10.51, such an amendment may include a statement that debarment action is warranted under § 10.52. Such amendments shall be allowed when justice and the presentation of the merits are served thereby, provided there is no prejudice to the objecting party's presentation on the merits. When issues not raised by the pleadings are reasonably within the scope of the original complaint and are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings, and such amendments may be made as necessary to make them conform to the evidence. The presiding Administrative Law Judge may, upon reasonable notice and upon such terms as are just, permit supplemental pleadings setting forth transactions, occurrences or events which have happened since the date of the pleadings and which are relevant to any of the issues involved. A continuance in the hearing may be granted or the record left open to enable the new allegations to be addressed.
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ALLSTATES WORLDCARGO, INC. (the
"Company") on Form 10Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sam
DiGiralomo, President 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)
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/ Sam DiGiralomo
-------------------
Sam DiGiralomo
President, Chief Executive Officer


August 14, 2003
§ 102.163 Opportunity for repayment. ( a ) The Agency must afford the debtor the opportunity to repay the debt or enter into a repayment plan which is agreeable to the Agency and is in a written form signed by the debtor. The Agency may deem a repayment plan to be abrogated if the debtor, after the repayment plan is signed, fails to comply with the terms of the plan.
( b ) The Agency has discretion and may exercise sound judgment in determining whether to accept a repayment agreement in lieu of administrative offset.
[82 FR 11785, Feb. 24, 2017]
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4826 

To waive an advance notice requirement with respect to the Four Forest 

Restoration Initiative Phase 2 Stewardship contract. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 21 (legislative day, OCTOBER 19), 2020 

Ms. MCSALLY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To waive an advance notice requirement with respect to 

the Four Forest Restoration Initiative Phase 2 Stewardship contract. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CANCELLATION CEILING. 

4 (a) WAIVER OF ADVANCE NOTICE.—The 30-day ad5 vance notice requirement under paragraph (2) of section 

6 604(h) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 

7 (16 U.S.C. 6591c(h)) and the 14-day notice requirement 

8 under paragraph (3) of that section shall not apply to the 

9 Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI) Phase 2 Stew10 ardship contract (solicitation 12837119R4005). 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4826 IS

1 (b) NOTICE.—Not later than 7 days after entering 

2 into the Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI) Phase 

3 2 Stewardship contract (solicitation 12837119R4005), the 

4 Chief of the Forest Service shall submit the notices other5 wise required under paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 

6 604(h) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 

7 (16 U.S.C. 6591c(h)). 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### § 93.152 Description of area.

Within that airspace below 3,000 feet MSL within the lateral boundary of the surface area of the Ketchikan Class E airspace regardless of whether that airspace is in effect.

[Doc. No. FAA-2002-13235, 68 FR 9795, Feb. 28, 2003]
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, William J. McEntee, Jr., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Interep National Radio Sales, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present
in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) (Intentionally omitted)



c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors:



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant
role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting.



|                   |  |                                                                          
|------------------ |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 13, 2005 |  | /s/    WILLIAM J. MCENTEE,
JR.                                           
|                   |  | William J. McEntee, Jr. Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 133062 & (55) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 133062 COA: 264593 Macomb CC: 2004-004313-FC MARTIN CHRISTIAN SORLIEN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 14, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to remand is DENIED.

d0521 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 30, 2007

Clerk
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4802 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to close or realign the Marine Corps 

Recruit Depot located at Parris Island, South Carolina. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 19, 2020 

Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Armed Services 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to close or realign 

the Marine Corps Recruit Depot located at Parris Island, 

South Carolina. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Parris Island Protec5 tion Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 

8 (1) The Marine Corps Recruit Depot located at 

9 Parris Island, South Carolina (in this section reVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:50 Oct 27, 2020 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S4802.IS S4802

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4802 IS

1 ferred to as ‘‘Parris Island’’), has served the United 

2 States as a home to the Marine Corps since 1891. 

3 (2) Parris Island was the first, and remains the 

4 only, facility to integrate women in boot camp train5 ing for the Marine Corps in the United States. 

6 (3) Female recruits have trained at Parris Is7 land since 1949. 

8 (4) The first integrated company of male and 

9 female recruits graduated from Parris Island in 

10 2019. 

11 (5) Parris Island has cultivated a legacy of ex12 cellence and faithful service to the United States. 

13 (6) Parris Island is and shall remain the phys14 ical home of the U.S. Marine Corps Eastern Re15 cruiting Region. 

16 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION OF CLOSING OR REALIGNMENT OF 

17 MARINE CORPS RECRUIT DEPOT LOCATED 

18 AT PARRIS ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA. 

19 No Federal funds may be used to close or realign Ma20 rine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, South Carolina, 

21 or to conduct any planning or other activity related to 

22 such closure or realignment. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Instructions

Sample and analyze the particulate matter collected in the hopper from each bag house or electrostatic precipitator (ESP) used to control particulate 

matter from potlines. Where more than one bag house or ESP discharges solids to a common hopper, a single sample will be adequate. In cases 

where solids from different compartments of a single bag house or ESP are collected in multiple hoppers or multiple collection sacks, a single 

composite sample will be adequate.

If a wet scrubber is used to control emissions from a potline, sample and analyze the scrubber sludge removed from the scrubber, and estimate the 

annual mass (dry basis) of this sludge. In addition, if applicable, sample and analyze the slurry injected into the scrubber and estimate the annual mass 

(dry basis) of the injected slurry. Finally, if there is an aqueous discharge or blowdown stream from the scrubber, sample and analyze the this liquid and 

estimate the annual volume discharged.

You must report the results of these chemical analyses in this Microsoft® Excel Emission Test Template. If more than one source was tested, you must 

make a copy of the worksheet and update the source ID in order to distinguish between each separate source of particulate matter. After completing 

the worksheet, you must also submit an electronic copy of the emission test report and the chemical analyses. (PDF format preferred).
Wet Scrubber Blowdown

Facility Name and Address Unit Description Process Unit ID Control Device ID*

Reynolds Metals Co., 194 County Rt. 

45, Massena, NY 13662 Potline - P-OT001 A02 C5156

Sample ID No._Water -E77 Wetscrubber WA____________________

Date Sampled Date(s) Analyzed

5/26/2011 6/20/2011

HAP Metal mg/L

Antimony ND

Beryllium 0.0008

Chromium ND

Hexavalent chromium ND

Lead 0.014

Selenium 0.169

Arsenic 0.05

Cadmium ND

Cobalt 0.004

Manganese 0.039

Nickel 0.168

* Enter multiple control device ID Nos. if the results apply to mulitiple control devices.

Annual mass of scrubber blowdown 

removed from scrubber (gallons)
[No. 28074-4-II.

Division Two.

December 6, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Karen Elaine Baker, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 00-1-02500-1, Frank Cuthbertson, J., entered November 9, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Bridgewater, J., concurred in by Hunt, C.J., and Seinfeld, J.