alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment 2 to Sublease



 Exhibit 10.32 
 Amendment 2 
  

	1.	PURPOSE 

 This amendment is further to the sublease agreement dated
August 30, 2005 (the “Sublease”) by and between Innercool Therapies, Inc., formerly known as Neurothermia, Inc. (“Sublessor”), and ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Sublessee”), and is also further to the Amendment 1
between the parties dated October 31, 2006, and provides that Sublessor shall retain possession of the laboratory space for one additional month. 
  

	2.	PREMISES 

 As per Amendment 1, the Phase II subleased area is described by
an indicated area on Exhibit B of Amendment 1. The indicated area of Exhibit B is approximately 9,100 square feet, and generally encompasses office space, cubicle space, an IT/Telephone and Utilities room, laboratory space, and three restrooms, but
not a coating laboratory, warehouse space, shop space, or showers. The laboratory space encompasses approximately 1,728 square feet. 
  

	3.	TERM 

 As per Amendment 1, the sublease term for the Phase II portion of
the Additional Premises is to commence on January 1, 2007, and is to expire coterminous with the Master Lease on October 31, 2007. By this Amendment 2, however, Sublessor shall retain possession and occupancy of a section of the Phase II
portion, in particular the laboratory space, for a period of time up to and including January 31, 2007. 
  

	4.	RENT 

 The triple net rent for the Additional Premises is $1.20 per
rentable square foot and is flat for the applicable Term. In consideration of Sublessor’s continued occupancy of the laboratory space for the month of January 2007, Sublessee shall not be responsible for any rents due to laboratory space for
the month of January 2007, this amount approximately equal to $2,725.06. Therefore, the rent due from Sublessee for January 2007 pursuant to Amendment 1 for the Additional Premises shall be reduced by the amount specified in the foregoing sentence.

  

	5.	ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS 

 Except as specified in this Amendment 2, all other
applicable terms of the Sublease and its Amendment 1 remain unmodified. 







 Executed at 3931 Sorrento Valley Boulevard, San Diego, CA 92121. 
  

							
	 SUBLESSOR:
	 	SUBLESSEE:
				
	By:	 	Innercool Therapies, Inc.	 	By:	 	ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc.
		 	a Delaware corporation	 		 	a Delaware corporation
				
	Signature:	 	 /s/ Michael Magers
	 	Signature:	 	 /s/ Thomas H. Aasen

				
	Name:	 	Michael Magers	 	Name:	 	Thomas H. Aasen
				
	Title:	 	President	 	Title:	 	Chief Financial Officer, Purchasing & Facilities
§ 69.311 Consumer Broadband-Only Loop investment. ( a ) Each non-price cap local exchange carrier shall remove consumer broadband-only loop investment assigned to the special access category by §§ 69.301 through 69.310 from the special access category and assign it to the Consumer Broadband-Only Loop category when the tariff charge described in § 69.132 of this part becomes effective.
( b ) Until June 30, 2018, the consumer broadband-only loop investment to be removed from the special access category shall be determined using the following estimation method. ( 1 ) To determine the investment in Common Line facilities as if 100 percent were allocated to the interstate jurisdiction, a carrier shall use 100 percent as the interstate allocator in determining investment and the allocation of investment to the common line category under part 36 of this chapter and this part.
( 2 ) The result of paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be divided by the number of voice and voice/data lines in the study area to produce an average investment per line.
( 3 ) The average investment per line determined by paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall be multiplied by the number of Consumer Broadband-only Loops in the study area to derive the investment to be shifted from the Special Access category to the Consumer Broadband-only Loop category.
( c ) Beginning July 1, 2018, each carrier shall determine, consistent with the Part 36 and Part 69 cost allocation rules, the amount of Consumer Broadband-Only Loop investment and related reserves and other investment assigned to the interstate Special Access category that is to be shifted to the Consumer Broadband-Only Loop category.
[81 FR 24345, Apr. 25, 2016, as amended at 82 FR 14340, Mar. 20, 2017; 83 FR 14189, Apr. 3, 2018]
No. 11-8817.

#### George *v.*Gansheimer, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
- TN 78 1
- TN 78 6
- TN 78 2
- TN 78 3
- TN 78 4
- TN 78 5
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Patuxent Wildlife Research CenterWe're Migrating!Sorry we couldn't find what you're looking for.Here are some common destinations on our new website
New Patuxent Home Page

Bird Banding Lab

Breeding Bird Survey

Amphibian Research & Monitoring

Native Pollinators/Bees

Patuxent's Research Topics
If you didn't find what you are looking for, please use the search tool at the top of this page or send us a message.Thank you for your patience! |

        - DOI Privacy Policy
        - Legal
        - Accessibility
        - Site Map
        - Contact USGS

----

        - U.S. Department of the Interior
        - DOI Inspector General
        - White House
        - E-gov
        - Open Government
        - No Fear Act
        - FOIA

        - Follow
        -  *Twitter* 
        -  *Facebook* 
        -  *Google+* 
        -  *GitHub* 
        -  *Flickr* 
        -  *YouTube* 
        -  *Instagram*
Amendment No. 1 to Asset Purchase Agreement



 Exhibit 10.36 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT 
 THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT, dated as of the 31st day of October, 2006 (this
“Amendment”), is between Nabi Biopharmaceuticals, a Delaware corporation (the “Seller”), and Fresenius USA Manufacturing, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Buyer”), and amends the
Asset Purchase Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”), dated as of October 11, 2006, by and between the Buyer and the Seller. 
 BACKGROUND STATEMENT 
 Pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, the Buyer agreed to purchase from the Seller, and the Seller
agreed to sell to the Buyer, the Seller’s PhosLo Business. 
 The Buyer and the Seller desire to amend the Purchase Agreement as
provided herein. 
 STATEMENT OF AGREEMENT 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
 Section 1. Capitalized Terms.
Capitalized terms used herein without definition shall have the meanings given to them in the Purchase Agreement. 
 Section 2.
Termination Date. Sections 11.1(d), (e) and (f) of the Purchase Agreement are hereby amended by substituting the date “November 14, 2006” for the dates “October 31, 2006” and “November 11, 2006” in each
instance where such dates appear. 
 Section 3. Effectiveness of this Amendment. This Amendment shall be effective upon execution
hereof by the parties hereto. 
 Section 4. Effect of Amendment. From and after the effective date of this Amendment, all
references to the Purchase Agreement set forth in any other document or other agreement or instrument shall, unless otherwise specifically provided, be references to the Purchase Agreement as amended by this Amendment. This Amendment shall not
constitute or be deemed to constitute an amendment, modification or waiver of any provision of the Purchase Agreement except as expressly set forth herein. Except as expressly amended hereby, the Purchase Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect in accordance with its terms. 







 Section 5. Governing Law. The execution, interpretation and performance of this Amendment
shall be governed by the internal laws and judicial decisions of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
 Section 6. Counterparts;
Electronic Signatures. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. This Amendment may be executed on signature
pages exchanged by facsimile or other electronic means, in which event each party shall promptly deliver to the others such number of original executed copies as the others may reasonably request. 
 (This remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.) 







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

			
	NABI BIOPHARMACEUTICALS
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Thomas H. McLain

	Name:	 	Thomas H. McLain
	Title:	 	Chairman, President and CEO
	
	FRESENIUS USA MANUFACTURING, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Rice Powell

	Name:	 	Rice Powell
	Title:	 	President
#### § 54.1703 Emergency Connectivity Fund competitive bidding requirements.

A school, library, or consortium seeking to participate in the Emergency Connectivity Fund must comply with all applicable state, local, or Tribal procurement requirements for all equipment and services supported by the Emergency Connectivity Fund.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Dav is, 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.

___________________ ______________________ Clerk September 4, 2012

d0827 

# Order

September 4, 2012

145024

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145024

COA: 301559

Wayne CC: 10

- 007618

- FC

HOWARD LEVAR SMITH,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court , the application for leave to appeal the March 13, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
## OPPT·2013-0225 • Scanned &Processed in CIS by: PAULA 

# 12/3/2014

COMMENTS: DOCKETGENERAL CONTACT REPORT Draft I Internal Deliberative I. Type ofContact (Telephone, Meeting, etc.): CBI? Telephone Yes II. EPA Information

Name(s) ofEPA Reprcscntative(s): Date/Time: Greg Fritz December 2012 Division/Branch & Phone#: Contact Initiator? GF with EETD/ICB (202) 564-8583 Yes III. Second }>arty Information

Namc(s) ofSecond Party Representative(s): PMN Number ITopic: 

### xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Form U Accession# Company & Phone#: Contact Initiator? 

### xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx No IV. Summary ofIssues Discussed and Comments Received:

The following chemistry issues were discussed after voicemail and email tag. 

### ""' 

### = 

# - ..,.. Questions: A) In the 2012 CDR Form U you report Accession number c:;:J**~** 

### ,..,., 

# xxxxxxxxxxxxx " I 

## - w 

# - Answer A]**~** '**~** 

## a ( Q B) 

### w Answer B] I.D Signature ofEPA Official: Greg Fritz Date December 2012



# SANITIZED
[Civ. No. 1417.

First Appellate District.

February 3, 1914.]

#### JAMES J. RYAN, Appellant, v. WILEY F. CRIST et al., Respondents.

Criminal Law—Search Warrant—Prohibition After Execution of Warrant.—A writ of prohibition will not issue to restrain the execution of a search warrant where, before the issuance of the alternative writ, the search warrant has been executed and the property taken into the possession of the magistrate, and no showing is made of any further attempted judicial action on his part.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. F. H. Dunne, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

A. S. Newburgh, for Appellant.

C. M. Fickert, District Attorney, and Maxwell McNutt, for Respondents.

THE COURT.

On petition for rehearing.

The petition for rehearing must be denied. The original application for the writ of prohibition avers the issuance and threatened execution of a search warrant, by which the property" of the petitioner will be seized and taken into the possession of the magistrate issuing the process. The record shows that before the alternative writ was issued the search warrant had already been executed and the property taken into the possession of the magistrate. Its office was therefore fulfilled ; and there was nothing for the court to prohibit unless it should appear that the magistrate was undertaking to do, or was assuming jurisdiction to do, some further act with reference to the property; but the record affirmatively and conclusively shows that there is no judicial act under the statute relating to search warrants which the magistrate is either assuming to do or can do, except the act of restoring the property to the petitioner upon his demand. He has made no such demand; but if he should do so, and the demand should be refused, it would appear upon the facts stated in the record that he has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in an action *745to recover its possession, with damages for its unlawful detention. In the absence of any showing that the writ here sought is desired to prohibit any judicial action on the part of the magistrate except that which had been already consummated before the alternative writ was issued, the court adheres to its view that the matters presented upon this appeal are moot questions, which this court is not called upon to decide.
No. 11-5703.

#### Dalluge *v.*Washington.

Sup. Ct. Wash. Cer-tiorari denied.
794 A.2d 177

#### IN THE MATTER OF GERALD F. FITZPATRICK, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

April 19, 2002.

ORDER

GERALD F. FITZPATRICK, of BAYONNE, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1971, having tendered his consent to disbarment as an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that GERALD F. FITZPATRICK, is disbarred by consent, effective immediately; and it is further

*437ORDERED that respondent’s name be stricken from the roll of attorneys and that he be permanently restrained and' enjoined from practicing law; and it is further

ORDERED that all funds, if any, currently existing in any New Jersey financial institution maintained by GERALD F. FITZPATRICK, pursuant to *Rule*1:21-6 shall be restrained from disbursement except on application to this Court for good cause shown and shall be transferred by the financial institution to the Clerk of the Superior Court, who is directed to deposit the funds in the Superior Court Trust Fund pending further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with disbarred attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
§ 68.322 Changes in name, address, ownership or control of responsible party. ( a ) The responsible party for a Supplier's Declaration of Conformity may license or otherwise authorize a second party to manufacture the equipment covered by the Supplier's Declaration of Conformity provided that the responsible party shall continue to be responsible to the Commission for ensuring that the equipment produced pursuant to such an agreement remains compliant with the appropriate standards.
( b ) In the case of transactions affecting the responsible party of a Supplier's Declaration of Conformity, such as a transfer of control or sale to another company, mergers, or transfer of manufacturing rights, the successor entity shall become the responsible party.
[66 FR 7586, Jan. 24, 2001]
No. 11-1326.

#### Jones *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of Y3K Secure  Enterprises  Software,
Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"),  on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending
September 30, 2003 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  (the
"Report"), I, King Cole, President and CEO of the Company,  certify, pursuant to
ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350),  that to my
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 result of  operations of the
Company.


/s/ King Cole
------------------
King Cole
President and CEO
November 14, 2003
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4991

To provide that Oregon may not tax compensation paid to a resident of

Washington for services as a Federal employee at a Federal hydroelectric

facility located on the Columbia River.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 18, 1994

Mr. INSLEE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide that Oregon may not tax compensation paid

to a resident of Washington for services as a Federal

employee at a Federal hydroelectric facility located on

the Columbia River.

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

3 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF STATE AUTHORITY TO TAX

4 COMPENSATION PAID TO CERTAIN FEDERAL

5 EMPLOYEES.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 111 of title 4, United

7 States Code, is amended—
2

•HR 4991 IH

1 (1) by inserting ‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—’’ be2 fore ‘‘The United States’’ the first place it appears,

3 and

4 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub5 section:

6 ‘‘(b) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN FEDERAL EMPLOY7 EES EMPLOYED AT FEDERAL HYDROELECTRIC FACILI8 TIES LOCATED ON THE COLUMBIA RIVER.—Pay or com9 pensation paid by the United States for personal services

10 as an employee of the United States at a hydroelectric

11 facility—

12 ‘‘(1) which is owned by the United States,

13 ‘‘(2) which is located on the Columbia River,

14 and

15 ‘‘(3) portions of which are within the States of

16 Oregon and Washington,

17 shall be subject to taxation by the State of Oregon or any

18 political subdivision thereof only if such employee is a resi19 dent of such State or political subdivision.’’

20 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

21 subsection (a) shall apply to pay and compensation paid

22 after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Your session is about to expire.Resume session

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Welcome.Log inorregisterCOPS OFFICE RESOURCE CENTER

HomeCatalogCartOrders

                    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                CatalogMatches: 1Offline form Recent Popular Online Print OtherCOPS-P246Essentials for Leaders: A Performance-Based Approach to Police Staffing AllocationThe COPS Office presents this Essentials for Leaders, which provides summaries of existing and new COPS Office publications and resources, tailored for executives. Essentials for Leaders: A Performance-Based Approach to Staffing and Allocation summarizes the research conducted by the Michigan State University team on the current staffing allocation landscape for law enforcement agencies and provides a practical step-by-step approach for any agency to assess its own patrol staffing needs based upon its workload and performance objectives. Additionally, it identifies some ways beyond the use of sworn staff that workload demand can be managed, and discusses how an agency's approach to community policing implementation can affect staffing allocation and deployment.By Jeremy M. Wilson, Alexander WeissCategories: Hiring, Recruitment, and RetentionLanguage: EnglishLow stockPublic linkhttps://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter?item=cops-p246Click here to see the entire catalog.Cart:Download PDFBook • Aug 2012Search catalogreset title abstract authors contentContaining text: exact phraseNot containing text: exact phraseLanguage:anyEnglishSpanishHmongVietnameseCategory:anyAlternatives to IncarcerationCommunity PartnershipsData and AnalysisEthics and IntegrityFoundations of Community PolicingHiring, Recruitment, and RetentionHomeland SecurityNew Immigrant CommunitiesNonviolent CrimeOtherPolice OperationsPOP Center ResourceSchool and Campus SafetyTechnologyTribalViolent CrimeYouth SafetyPublished after:Published before:Page1

                    

FOIA | No FEAR Act | Open Government | Privacy | Legal|HelpCopyright (C) U.S. Department of Justice, COPS Office, IT Division, 2012 - 2024. All rights reserved.
Rendered on Mon Mar 4 2024 at 02:31 (UTC-5) in 0.20 secEnterprise Framework 3.21.7.7 • Store Controls 3.3.1.7Survey 500303407 Section 60000560 Rules Hints Inactive
No. 92-1777.

#### Yong Woo Jung *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4876 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4876

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the exclusion 
  for gain from certain small business stock to 100 percent for stock 
                      held for more than 10 years.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 1, 1994

Mr. McHale (for himself and Mr. McInnis) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the exclusion 
  for gain from certain small business stock to 100 percent for stock 
                      held for more than 10 years.

    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 ``Capital Gains Exclusion Expansion 
Act of 1994''.

SEC. 2. 100 PERCENT EXCLUSION FOR GAIN FROM CERTAIN SMALL BUSINESS 
              STOCK HELD FOR MORE THAN 10 YEARS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 1202 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 50-percent exclusion for gain from 
certain small business stock) is amended by adding at the end the 
following: ``In the case of qualified small business stock held for 
more than 10 years, the preceding sentence shall be applied by 
substituting `100 percent' for `50 percent'. Subsections (g)(2) and 
(h)(1) shall be applied by substituting `10 years' for `5 years' for 
purposes of determining whether stock is described in the preceding 
sentence.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to stock issued after August 10, 1993.
                                 <all>
```
No. 11-5458.

#### Rogers *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.