alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.45

                              TERMINATION AGREEMENT
                              ---------------------

         THIS TERMINATION  AGREEMENT (the  "AGREEMENT") is made and entered into
effective as of February ___,  2002, by and between  CELERITY  SYSTEMS,  INC., a
Delaware  corporation  (the  "Company"),  and CORNELL  CAPITAL  PARTNERS,  LP, a
Delaware limited partnership (the "Investor").

                                    Recitals:
                                    ---------

         WHEREAS,  the Company and the  Investor  entered into an Equity Line of
Credit  Agreement  dated as of June 14,  2001  (the  "EQUITY  LINE OF  CREDIT");
wherein the Company shall issue and sell to the Investor, and the Investor shall
purchase from the Company, up to $10 million of the Company's common stock; and

         WHEREAS,  the Company and the Investor entered into various  agreements
in connection with the Equity Line of Credit,  including the Registration Rights
Agreement dated as of June 14, 2001 and the Warrant Agreement dated as of August
27, 2001 pursuant to which the Company granted the Investor  options to purchase
2,500,000  shares of common stock and the Escrow  Agreement dated as of June 14,
2001.  Collectively,  the Agreement,  the  Registration  Rights  Agreement,  the
Warrant  Agreement and the Escrow  Agreement are referred to as the "TRANSACTION
DOCUMENTS."

         NOW,  THEREFORE,  in  consideration  of the  promises  and  the  mutual
promises,  conditions and covenants herein  contained and in the Agreement,  and
other good and valuable consideration,  receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
the parties hereto agree as follows:

      1.      TERMINATION.   Each  of  the  parties  to  the  Agreement   hereby
terminates  its  respective   rights  and  obligations   under  the  Transaction
Documents.  As a result of this  provision,  none of the parties  shall have any
rights or obligations  under or with respect to the Transaction  Documents.  The
Investor  agrees to deliver to the  Company  the  originally  signed copy of the
Warrant Agreement, which shall be promptly canceled by the Company.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed and delivered this Termination
Agreement on the date first set forth above.

                                         CELERITY SYSTEMS, INC.

                                         By:
                                         Name:  Kenneth D. Van Meter
                                         Title: President

                                         CORNELL CAPITAL PARTNERS, LP

                                         By:  Yorkville Advisors, LLC
                                         Its: General Partner

                                         By:
                                         Name:  Mark A. Angelo
                                         Title: Portfolio Manager
# C_2012157EN.01000503.xml

| 2.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 157/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/5

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 2 April 2012 — Anna Muzzio v A.S.L. Pavia and Others

(Case C-161/12)

2012/C 157/09

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Anna Muzzio

Applicant:

Defendants: A.S.L. Pavia and Others

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Do the principles of freedom of establishment, non-discrimination and the preservation of competition under Article 49 et seq TFEU preclude national legislation which does not allow a pharmacist, who is qualified and entered in the relevant professional register but does not own a pharmacy on the ‘pianta organica’ [territorial grid], also to offer for retail sale, in the para-pharmacy owned by that pharmacist, pharmaceutical products which are subject to a prescription in the form of a ‘ricetta bianca’ — that is to say, pharmaceutical products the cost of which is borne not by the [national health service] but wholly by the citizen — and which accordingly also establishes in that sector a prohibition on the sale of certain categories of pharmaceutical product, as well as a quota in relation to the number of commercial outlets which may be established in the national territory?

pianta organica

ricetta bianca

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JENNIFER HALL,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-11899

v.

HON. AVERN COHN

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

____________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 16)

AND

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 15)

AND

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 13)

AND

DISMISSING CASE

I.

This is a social security case. Plaintiff Jennifer Hall appeals from the final

determination of the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) that she is not

disabled and therefore not entitled to disability insurance benefits and supplemental

security income benefits. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge for all pretrial

proceedings. Plaintiff and the Commissioner filed cross motions for summary judgment. 

See Docs. 13, 15. 

The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (MJRR)

recommending that the Commissioner’s motion be granted, that plaintiff’s motion be

denied, and the case be dismissed. (Doc. 16).

2:15-cv-11899-AC-PTM Doc # 18 Filed 07/15/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 813
II.

Neither party has filed objections to the MJRR and the time for filing objections

has passed. The failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives any

further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d

1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the magistrate judge's

report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the motions. Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, the Court has reviewed the MJRR and agrees

with the magistrate judge’s recommendations. 

Accordingly, the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are ADOPTED

as the findings and conclusions of the Court. The Commissioner’s motion for summary

judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. This case

is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

Dated: July 15, 2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 Detroit, Michigan

2

2:15-cv-11899-AC-PTM Doc # 18 Filed 07/15/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 814
HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 18537 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 18538 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 18539 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 18540 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 18541 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 18542 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 18543 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 18544 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 18545 1986
#### § 173.059 Penetrations and openings in watertight bulkheads.

Penetrations and openings in watertight bulkheads must comply with the requirements in subpart E of part 171 of this subchapter or §§ 179.320, 179.330, and 179.340 in subchapter T of this chapter.

[CGD 83-005, 51 FR 924, Jan. 9, 1986, as amended by CGD 85-080, 61 FR 946, Jan. 10, 1996]
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 93 (Tuesday, May 15, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 27305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2390]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy


Pre-Announcement Meeting Notice for Financial Assistance Funding 
Opportunity Announcement (FOA) Number DE-PS36-07GO97012

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of Pre-Announcement Meeting for Manufacturing Research 
and Development for Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Systems FOA.

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

SUMMARY: The Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Infrastructure Technologies 
Program, under the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy, is planning to solicit financial assistance applications for 
cost-shared financial assistance agreements with the DOE for research 
and development that will advance manufacturing technologies for 
hydrogen and fuel cell systems. This Pre-Announcement Meeting will 
allow sources outside of DOE to review and comment on the proposed 
topics and scope of the planned announcement.

DATES: Pre-Announcement Meeting to be held 1 p.m. EDT, May 18, 2007.

ADDRESSES: The Pre-Announcement Meeting will be held at the Crystal 
Gateway Marriott, 1700 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill Gruber, Project Officer, via e-
mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#deb4b7b2b2f0b9acabbcbbac9eb9b1f0bab1bbf0b9b1a8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="81ebe8ededafe6f3f4e3e4f3c1e6eeafe5eee4afe6eef7">[email protected]</span></a>. Further information on DOE's Hydrogen, 
Fuel Cells and Infrastructure Technologies Program can be viewed at 
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: During the Pre-Announcement Meeting, DOE is 
planning on reviewing the scope, topics and application process for the 
Manufacturing Research and Development for Hydrogen and Fuel Cell 
Systems FOA. Questions and comments will be solicited and answered 
about the content and scope of the FOA, including suggestions for 
research and development areas, clarification on proposed topics, and 
clarification on the application process and requirements. Proceedings 
from the meeting will be posted on the Web site at http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells. DOE intends to release the 
FOA around June of 2007, with award(s) to be made about a year later.

    Dated: Issued in Golden, CO, on May 7, 2007.
Matthew A. Barron,
Acting Procurement Director, Golden Field Office.
[FR Doc. 07-2390 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 308.506 Application for an Open Cargo Policy.

Application for an Open Cargo Policy shall be made by filing Form MA-301, prescribed in § 308.521, with the underwriting agent of MARAD. The application shall state the applicant's name and address; the person or persons to whom loss shall be payable; the nature and geographic scope of the shipments to be covered under the policy which shall not be broader than the coverage authorized in § 308.501; the requested effective date, which shall not be earlier than the date of the completion of the requirements for the issuance of the policy; and the basis of valuation to be incorporated in the policy. An applicant may specify one basis of valuation for imports and another for exports, and he may specify different bases of valuation for different commodities or voyages, provided that each basis of valuation specified by the applicant shall define the value by the use of facts which existed prior to the date of the shipment and which are readily ascertainable by either party after the safe arrival or loss of the shipment.
§ 27.209 What are the requirements for training crews to respond to fires? ( a ) *Drills and instruction.* The master or person in charge of a vessel must ensure that each crewmember participates in drills and receives instruction at least once each month. The instruction may coincide with the drills, but need not. You must ensure that all crewmembers are familiar with their fire-fighting duties, and, specifically, with the following contingencies: ( 1 ) Fighting a fire in the engine room and elsewhere on board the vessel, including how to— ( i ) Operate all of the fire-extinguishing equipment on board the vessel;
( ii ) Stop any mechanical ventilation system for the engine room and effectively seal all natural openings to the space to prevent leakage of the extinguishing agent; and
( iii ) Operate the fuel shut-off for the engine room.
( 2 ) Activating the general alarm.
( 3 ) Reporting inoperative alarm systems and fire-detection systems.
( 4 ) Putting on a fireman's outfit and a self-contained breathing apparatus, if the vessel is so equipped.
( b ) *Alternative form of instruction.* The master or person in charge of a vessel may substitute, for the instruction required in paragraph (a) of this section, the viewing of video training materials concerning at least the contingencies listed in paragraph (a), followed by a discussion led by someone familiar with these contingencies. This instruction may occur either on board or off the vessel.
( c ) *Participation in drills.* Drills must take place on board the vessel, as if there were an actual emergency. They must include— ( 1 ) Participation by all crewmembers;
( 2 ) Breaking out and using, or simulating the use of, emergency equipment;
( 3 ) Testing of all alarm and detection systems; and
( 4 ) Putting on protective clothing (by at least one person), if the vessel is so equipped.
( d ) *Safety orientation.* The master or person in charge of a vessel must ensure that each crewmember who has not (i) participated in the drills required by paragraph (a) of this section, and (ii) received the instruction required by that paragraph, receives a safety orientation within 24 hours of reporting for duty.
( e ) The safety orientation must cover the particular contingencies listed in paragraph (a) of this section.
# C_2013108EN.01001907.xml

| 13.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/19

---

Order of the President of the Court of 5 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — Miguel Fradera Torredemer, Maria Teresa Torredemer Marcet, Enrique Fradera Ohlsen, Alicia Fradera Torredemer v Corporación Uniland S.A.

(Case C-364/12) (1)

1

2013/C 108/51

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 6.10.2012.

1

---
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2325 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 16, 2009 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1300 Matamoros Street in Laredo, Texas, 

as the ‘‘Laredo Veterans Post Office’’. 

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


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

HR 2325 RFS

1 SECTION 1. LAREDO VETERANS POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 1300 Matamoros Street in La4 redo, Texas, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘La5 redo Veterans Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Laredo Veterans Post 

10 Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 15, 2009. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
#### § 32.30-5 Engine order telegraph equipment—T/ALL.

Each tankship must have an engine order telegraph system which meets the requirements in subchapter J (Electrical Engineering Regulations) of this chapter.

[CGD 74-125A, 47 FR 15230, Apr. 8, 1982]
#### Dennis L. Wright, Appellant, *v.*The Knights of the Maccabees of the World, Respondent.

(Submitted February 7, 1910;

decided February 15, 1910.)

Motion for re-argument denied, with ten dollars costs. (See 196 N. Y. 391.)
#### § 183.550 General alarm systems.

All vessels with overnight accommodations must be equipped with a general alarm system. The public address system required by § 184.610 of this chapter may be used to sound the general alarm signal.
§ 401.720 Authority of the Director over operations. ( a ) This section does not limit the authority of the Director under any other section in this chapter.
( b ) When pilotage service is not provided by the association authorized under 46 U.S.C. 9304 because of a physical or economic inability to do so, or when the Certificate of Authorization is under suspension or revocation under § 401.335, the Director may order any U.S. registered pilot to provide pilotage service.
[CGD 74-233, 40 FR 41527, Sept. 8, 1975, as amended by CGD 75-228, 40 FR 57673, Dec. 11, 1975. Redesignated and amended at 61 FR 32655, June 25, 1996, and further redesignated and amended by USCG-1998-3976, 63 FR 35139, 35140, June 29, 1998; USCG-2008-0906, 73 FR 56511, Sept. 29, 2008]
Editorial Note on Part 153
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 153 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 153.525 Special requirements for unusually toxic cargoes. When Table 1 refers to this section a containment system must meet the following: ( a ) Cargo piping and venting systems must be designed so that they can be separated from any containment system endorsed for a cargo not covered by this section.
( b ) A cargo tank's relief valve setting must be not less than 21 kPa gauge (approx. 3 psig).
( c ) All cargo pumps and valves located below the weatherdeck must be operable from the weatherdeck.
( d ) A heat transfer system for the cargo must: ( 1 ) Be independent of other ship service systems, except for other cargo heat transfer systems, and not enter the engine room;
( 2 ) Be totally external to the cargo containment system; or
( 3 ) Be approved by the Commandant (CG-ENG) for use with toxic cargoes.
( e ) The cargo must be separated from any bunkers by at least two bulkheads.
( f ) A cargo containment system must have a vapor return connection.
[CGD 73-96, 42 FR 49027, Sept. 26, 1977, as amended by CGD 78-128, 47 FR 21209, May 17, 1982; CGD 82-063b, 48 FR 4782, Feb. 3, 1983]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                            5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MRS. FIELDS
HOLDINGS  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                              1,000

<S>                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                             6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                        JUL-01-2000
<CASH>                                                    1,775
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             8,591
<ALLOWANCES>                                                930
<INVENTORY>                                               4,701
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         16,380
<PP&E>                                                   51,924
<DEPRECIATION>                                           26,171
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          195,670
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    23,839
<BONDS>                                                 181,968
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                      3
<OTHER-SE>                                              (13,116)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            195,670
<SALES>                                                  66,435
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         80,172
<CGS>                                                    22,001
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            81,980
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             65
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             71
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       12,468
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         (14,166)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 15
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     (14,181)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (14,196)
<EPS-BASIC>                                               (4.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             (4.19)


</TABLE>
#### Dodge *v.*Brennan.

Under an unrestricted common law submission, the parties are presumed to agree that every consideration, both of law and fact, which can affect the decision of the cause, is included in the authority of the arbitrators, and is matter proper for their determination.

Under a submission authorizing an award by a majority, it is no ground for setting aside an award that one of the arbitrators withdrew after the hearing was concluded, and refused to join in the award.

Bill in Equity, to set aside an award. Facts found by a referee. The arbitrators were chosen by the parties under an unrestricted common-law submission in writing. Against the objection of the plaintiff, the examination was conducted without requiring the witnesses to be sworn. The parties commenced the hearing without counsel, and a subsequent request by the plaintiff to be heard by counsel was denied. After the evidence was submitted, and the hearing concluded, and while the arbitrators were in consultation as to the award, one of them, without notice to the parties, withdrew, refusing to act further, and the .award was made by the other two. The submission provided that an award of the majority should be final. There was no intentional abuse of authority or discretion by the arbitrators, and it did not appear that injustice had been done.

*Wadleigh*Wallace, for the plaintiff.

*Stevens*Parker, for the defendant.

Clank, J.

The manner of the examination of the witnesses and parties, under oath or otherwise, and of conducting the hearing with or without counsel, was a matter so far within the discretion of the arbitrators that the award will not be disturbed unless it appears that injustice has been done. Under an unrestricted, written submission at common law, the arbitrators are judges both of the law and the facts; and if no reservation is made in the submission, the parties are presumed to agree that every considera*139tion, both of law and fact, which can affect the final decision of the cause, is included in the authority of the arbitrators, and is matter proper for their determination. *Truesdale*v. Straw, 58 N. H. 207; *Sanborn v. Murphy,*50 N. H. 65; *Pike v.*Gage, 29 N. H. 461; *Johnson v. Noble,*13 N. H. 286; *Walker*v. *Sanborn,*8 Greenl. 288; *The Boston Water Power Co. v.*Gray, 6 Met. 131; 2 Story’s Eq., s. 1454. The submission provided for an award by a majority of the arbitrators; and all having heard the parties and their evidence, the award of the majority is sufficient. *Plummer*v. Sanders, 55 N. H. 23; *Carpenter*v. *Wood,*1 Met. 409; *Maynard*v. *Frederick,*7 Cush. 247; *Cumberland*v. *North Yarmouth,*4 Greenl. 459, 468.

*Bill dismissed.*

Stanley, J., did not sit: the others concurred.