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





  Exhibit
10.13










 


 


 


 



Via Electronic Mail


 


November
8, 2019


 


 


Dear SK
Energy, LLC:


 


Pursuant
to our discussion, effective and commencing November 1, 2019, SK
Energy, LLC agrees to sublease one (1) office from PEDEVCO Corp. at
its headquarters located at 575 N. Dairy Ashford, Energy Center II,
Suite 210, Houston, Texas 77079, such office to be mutually agreed
upon by SK Energy, LLC and PEDEVCO Corp., for a monthly lease
amount of $1,200, payable monthly in advance by the 10th of each month. This
sublease may be terminated by either party at any time upon prior
written notice delivered to the other party.


 


 


Thank
you,


 


PEDEVCO
CORP.


 


 


 



           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
/s/ Clark R.
Moore                                                               






Name:
Clark R. Moore


Title:
EVP and General Counsel


 


 



Agreed and Acknowledged:


 


SK
Energy, LLC


 


 



/s/ Simon
Kukes                                                                            




Dr.
Simon Kukes, CEO and Owner
Editorial Note on Subpart 101-6.21 of Part 101-6
Editorial Note: For additional information, see related documents published at 47 FR 57369, Dec. 23, 1982, 48 FR 17101, Apr. 21, 1983, and 48 FR 29096, June 24, 1983.

§ 101-6.2104 What are the Administrator's general responsibilities under the Order? ( a ) The Administrator provides opportunities for consultation by elected officials of those State and local governments that would provide the non-Federal funds for, or that would be directly affected by, proposed Federal financial assistance from, or direct Federal development by, GSA.
( b ) If a State adopts a process under the Order to review and coordinate proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development, the Administrator, to the extent permitted by law: ( 1 ) Uses the State process to determine official views of State and local elected officials;
( 2 ) Communicates with State and local elected officials as early in a program planning cycle as is reasonably feasible to explain specific plans and actions;
( 3 ) Makes efforts to accommodate State and local elected officials' concerns with proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development that are communicated through the State process;
( 4 ) Allows the States to simplify and consolidate existing federally required State plan submissions;
( 5 ) Where State planning and budgeting systems are sufficient and where permitted by law, encourages the substitution of State plans for federally required State plans;
( 6 ) Seeks the coordination of views of affected State and local elected officials in one State with those of another State when proposed Federal financial assistance or direct Federal development has an impact on interstate metropolitan urban centers or other interstate areas; and
( 7 ) Supports State and local governments by discouraging the reauthorization or creation of any planning organization which is federally-funded, which has limited purpose, and which is not adequately representative of, or accountable to, State or local elected officials.
1 

Request for AmeriCorps VISTA Relocation Assistance Form

AmeriCorps VISTA requires VISTA members to submit this form to obtain financial assistance for

relocation. Members must complete and submit this form to VMSU@cns.gov within 45 days of 

relocating. 

The allowance for relocation is financial assistance to help offset the costs associated with relocating to

a new community for VISTA service. The assistance consists of a one-time Settling-In Allowance of $750 

and a Relocation Travel Allowance. The Relocation Travel Allowance is based on the direct mileage 

between your physical address immediately prior to relocation and your VISTA project site’s address. 

This allowance is calculated at $0.40 per mile and is paid eight to ten weeks after your relocation

voucher is approved. 

VISTA candidates and members are eligible for relocation assistance if they: 

1. are enrolled for a 12-month term of service, AND

2. relocate more than 50 miles from their physical address immediately prior to relocation, to the

physical address of your project site.

If you are eligible, and have relocated, or intend to relocate within the next 45 days for service, please 

complete and sign this form and return it to VMSU@cns.gov.

By completing and signing this form, you are certifying that you have relocated, or intend to relocate 

within the next 45 days. 

You may also submit this form to request Relocation Assistance if you relocate later in your service 

term. 

AmeriCorps VISTA will begin processing your Relocation Assistance request upon receipt of your 

completed form. Please be advised that if you receive Relocation Assistance, but do not relocate for 

service, AmeriCorps may seek to recoup those funds. 

Please provide the following addresses: 

Physical Address Relocated/Relocating FROM: 

Street Address:______________________________________________

City:_______________________ State:___ Zip Code:_____

Project Site Address: 

Street Address:______________________________________________

City:_______________________ State:___ Zip Code:_____
2 

ALTERNATIVE CERTIFICATIONS (Please Certify To Only One)

OPTION 1: By typing your name in the signature block, you are certifying that you have relocated for 

service with AmeriCorps VISTA and that you understand that if you do not relocate that AmeriCorps may 

seek to recoup relocation assistance funds from you.

I, ________________________, hereby certify that I have relocated for service with AmeriCorps VISTA. I 

understand that AmeriCorps may seek to recoup relocation assistance funds from me if I do not 

relocate. 

Signature: Date: 

OR 

OPTION 2: By typing your name in the signature block, you are certifying that you intend to relocate for 

service with AmeriCorps VISTA within the next 45 days and that you understand that if you do not 

relocate that AmeriCorps may seek to recoup relocation assistance funds from you.

I, ________________________, hereby certify that I intend to relocate for service with AmeriCorps 

VISTA within the next 45 days. I understand that AmeriCorps may seek to recoup relocation assistance 

funds from me if I do not relocate. 

Signature: Date:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No: 1:22-cv-23184-WPD

KELLY LYLES,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

Defendant.

__________________________________/

ORDER DENYING AS PREMATURE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE JOINT SCHEDULING REPORT

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time 

to Confer and to File Joint Scheduling Report and Discovery Plan (the “Motion”) filed by 

defendant, American Zurich Insurance Company, on November 8, 2022 in this action. [DE 7]. 

The Court has carefully considered the Motion, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. 

On October 3, 2022, the Court issued an Order Requiring Counsel to Meet, File Joint 

Scheduling Report and Joint Discovery Report and set various deadlines for the parties. [DE 4]. 

In that order, the Court ordered the Parties to file a joint scheduling report within thirty-five days 

of the filing of the first responsive pleading by the last responding defendant. In this case, 

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. [DE 6]. A motion to dismiss is not a “pleading.” See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 7. As Defendant has not yet filed an Answer, the Court will deny the instant Motion [DE 

7] as premature.

Accordingly it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion [DE 7] is hereby 

DENIED as premature. 

Case 1:22-cv-23184-WPD Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 1 of 2
2

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, 

this 9th day of November, 2022.

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of record

Case 1:22-cv-23184-WPD Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 14, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 37398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14966]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel, Bone Marrow Transplantation for Breast Cancer.
    Date: July 7, 2000.
    Time: 10:00 AM to 1:30 PM.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Cancer Institute, Grants Review Branch, 6116 
Executive Blvd., 8th Floor, Room 8034, Rockville, MD 20852 
(Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: William D. Merritt, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Grants Review Branch, National Cancer Institute, 
National Institutes of Health, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Room 8034, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-9767.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support, 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Instutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 8, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-14966 Filed 6-13-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-U
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 536

To amend the Small Business Act to require the establishment of a regional

or branch office of the Small Business Administration in each State.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 3, 1999

Mr. CASTLE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Small Business

A BILL

To amend the Small Business Act to require the establishment of a regional or branch office of the Small Business

Administration in each State.

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 ‘‘Small Business Admin5 istration Equal Representation Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION DISTRICT

7 OFFICES.

8 Section 4 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.

9 633(a)) is amended—
2

•HR 536 IH

1 (1) in the third sentence, by striking ‘‘branch

2 and regional’’ and inserting ‘‘regional, district, and

3 branch’’; and

4 (2) by inserting after the second sentence the

5 following: ‘‘The Administration shall establish not

6 less than 1 district office of the Administration in

7 each of the several States.’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements included in Part I, Item 1 of Form 10-Q dated September 30,
1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                              77
<SECURITIES>                                        87
<RECEIVABLES>                                      145
<ALLOWANCES>                                         1
<INVENTORY>                                         39
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   376
<PP&E>                                             459
<DEPRECIATION>                                     112
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,480
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               80
<BONDS>                                            917
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                         421
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,480
<SALES>                                            172
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   428
<CGS>                                               93
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      204
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  42
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    134
<INCOME-TAX>                                        47
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 87
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        87
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.97
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 20, 2015

s0513 

# Order

Clerk May 20, 2015

150623

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 150623

COA: 315982

Oakland CC: 1989

- 090203

- FC

GILBERT LEE POOLE, JR.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 2, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals for

the reason that no provision set forth in MCL 770.16 prohibits the issuance of an order

granting DNA testing of previously tested biological material. To the contrary, s ee MCL

770.16(4)(b)(ii). See also People v Hernandez

- Orta , 480 Mich 1101 (2008).

Furthermore, the law of the case doctrine does not apply because prior orders denying

leave to appeal were not rulings on the merits of the issues presented. See Grievance

Administrator v Lopatin , 462 Mich 235, 260 (2000). We REM AND this case to the

Court of Appeals for consideration of the issues raised by the defendant but not addressed

by that court during its initial review of this case.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 536 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 536

   To amend the Small Business Act to require the establishment of a 
regional or branch office of the Small Business Administration in each 
                                 State.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 3, 1999

  Mr. Castle introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Small Business Act to require the establishment of a 
regional or branch office of the Small Business Administration in each 
                                 State.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Administration Equal 
Representation Act''.

SEC. 2. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION DISTRICT OFFICES.

    Section 4 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 633(a)) is amended--
            (1) in the third sentence, by striking ``branch and 
        regional'' and inserting ``regional, district, and branch''; 
        and
            (2) by inserting after the second sentence the following: 
        ``The Administration shall establish not less than 1 district 
        office of the Administration in each of the several States.''.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Partners 

Duke Realty Limited Partnership: 

We consent tothe incorporation by reference in the registration statements No. 333-108557-01, No. 333-120492-01, No. 333-136173-01, and No. 333-160952-01 on Form S-3 of Duke Realty Limited Partnership of our report dated March 4, 2011,with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Duke Realty Limited Partnership and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, cash flows, and changes in equity for each of the yearsin the three-year period ended December 31, 2010, the related financial statement schedule III, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, which report appears in the December 31, 2010annual report on Form 10-K of Duke Realty Limited Partnership. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

March 4, 2011
#### Reuben E. McClain, appellee, v. A. E. Morse et al., appellants.

Filed October 2, 1894.

No. 5627.

Review: Bill of Exceptions: Defective Certificate': Af- ... firman ce. . The sole question being as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of fact made by a refer.ee, whose allowance of the bill of .exceptions fails to show that it contains all the evidence adduced, the judgment of the district court' is affirmed. Following *Turner v.*Turner, 12 Neb., 161, and *Omaha*... ,' *& tN. W. B. Co. v. Menk,*4 Neb., 24. .

Appeal from the district court of Douglas county. Heard below before Irvine, J. .

*Saunders & Maefarland,*for appellants.

*■Edgar il. Scott, contra.*

*53Ryan, C.

< This action was brought in the district court of Douglas county by the appellee,'against the appellants, for an accounting in the settlement of a partnership which had existed between the several parties litigant. By this appeal there is presented only the correctness of the findings of fact made by a referee, whose allowance of the alleged' bill of exceptions was as follows:

> “This bill of exceptions contains evidence given by both parties at the trial had before me, and is by me duly allowed on presentation by the defendant Clark.

> “Frank L. Weaver,

> *“Referee.”*

This fails to show that the evidence given was all that was given; hence; it is impossible for us to review the findr ings of fact of which complaint is made. *(Turner v. Turner,*12 Neb., 161; *Omaha & N. W. R. Co. v. Menk,*4 Neb., 24.) The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

Irvine, C., did not sit.
EXHIBIT 32



                             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 on Form 10-Q of Albertson's,  Inc. (the
"Company")  for the period ended July 31, 2003 as filed with the  Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  we, Lawrence R. Johnston
and Felicia D. Thornton,  Chief Executive  Officer and Chief Financial  Officer,
respectively,  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 to our
knowledge:

     (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 as of the dates and for the periods  expressed  in the
          Report.



September 5, 2003




\S\ Lawrence R. Johnston
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence R. Johnston
Chief Executive Officer


\S\ Felicia D. Thornton
-----------------------------------------
Felicia D. Thornton
Chief Financial Officer
#### § 102-117.255 What actions may I take if the TSP's performance is not satisfactory?

If the TSP's performance is not satisfactory, you may place a TSP in temporary nonuse, suspended status, or debarred status. For more information on doing this, see subpart I of this part and the FAR (48 CFR 9.406-3 and 9.407-3).
vygr_ Ex10_1


		
			Exhibit 10.1 
		

		
			 
		

		
			AMENDMENT No. 1
		

		
			CONSULTING AGREEMENT
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			This Amendment No. 01 (“Amendment”) is entered into as of July 9, 2019 (the “Amendment Effective Date”) between Steven M. Paul, M.D.    (“Company”) and Voyager Therapeutics, Inc. (“Voyager”) and relates to the Agreement referred to below.
		

		
			 
		

		
			WHEREAS, the parties previously entered into a CONSULTING AGREEMENT, effective August 2, 2018 (the “Agreement”); and 
		

		
			 
		

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

		
			 
		

		
			NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and obligations set forth below, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
		

		
			 
		

		
			1.The 1st sentence of Section 2 – Term and Termination shall be amended as set forth below:
		

		
			 
		

		
			“This Agreement will commence on the Effective Date and will expire on August 2, 2020 unless earlier terminated in accordance with this Agreement or extended by mutual written agreement (the “Term”).” 
		

		
			 
		

		
			2The 1st sentence of Section 2 – Compensation of Exhibit A - Accounting of Services Form shall be amended as set forth below:
		

		
			 
		

		
			“Fees:  Voyager will pay Consultant consulting fees of $16,700 per month during the Term.”   
		

		
			 
		

		
			3.    The 1st sentence of Section 3 – Period of Performance of Exhibit A - Accounting of Services Form shall be amended as set forth below:
		

		
			 
		

		
			“Services are anticipated to be complete by August 2, 2020.”        
		

		
			 
		

		
			4.   Initially capitalized terms used herein but not otherwise defined shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Agreement.
		

		
			 
		

		
			5.Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
		

		
			 
		

		
			6.This Amendment may be executed and delivered by facsimile or electronically transmitted signature and in two or more counterparts, all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.  The parties agree that upon being signed and delivered by the parties, this Amendment shall become effective and binding and that such signed copies will constitute evidence of the existence of this Amendment.
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			[Remainder of this page is intentionally left blank]
		

		
			


		 




SIGNATURE PAGE TO
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
		

		
			CONSULTING AGREEMENT
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto entered into this Amendment by their duly authorized representatives as of the Effective Date.
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			VOYAGER THERAPEUTICS, INC.CONSULTANT
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			By: /s/ G. Andre TurenneBy:  /s/ Steve M. Paul, M.D.
		

		
			 
		

		
			Name: G. Andre TurenneName: Steven M. Paul, M.D.
		

		
			 
		

		
			Title: President and CEO