alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.211

REDACTED VERSION

[**] CERTAIN INFORMATION IN THIS EXHIBIT HAS BEEN
OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION.
CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT HAS BEEN REQUESTED WITH
RESPECT TO THE OMITTED PORTIONS.

December 20,
2002

Mr. Lutz
Lingnau
President and Chief Executive Officer
Schering Berlin Inc.
340 Changebridge Road
P.O. Box 1000
Montville, NJ 07045-1000
Fax: 973.487.2005

Dear
Lutz:

This
is to confirm our understanding with respect to cost-sharing for the diluent syringe:

Chiron
and Schering have agreed to proceed with a diluent syringe for Betaseron®. In connection therewith, Chiron has negotiated agreements with Baxter for diluent syringe filling, MedNet
for the vial adapter component, and PCI for diluent syringe packaging, the key terms of which are set out in an attachment to this letter. Schering and Chiron have agreed to share the incremental
costs of the diluent syringe under such agreements as follows: in the event Schering and Chiron sign a new agreement replacing the RFDS Agreement, [***]Schering,[***]Chiron; in the event the parties
do not sign such a new agreement, Chiron's share will equal[***]and Schering's share shall [***].

Please
sign the enclosed copy of this letter for our records.

Very
truly yours,

CHIRON
CORPORATION

|By:                   |  | /s/CRAIG WHEELERCraig Wheeler
President, Chiron BioPharmaceuticals                 |  |  |  | 
|--------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 
|Agreed:               |  |                                                                                   
|SCHERING BERLIN, INC. |  |                                                                                   
|By:                   |  | /s/WOLFGANG KUNZE                                                                  |  |  |  | 
|                      |  | [Signed copy shows strike-through of this name: Lutz Lingnau]
W. Kunze
EVP and CFO

---

QuickLinks
**Exhibit
      3**





**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 Utah Medical Products, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kevin
      L. Cornwell, 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(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/ Kevin L. Cornwell


Kevin
      L.
      Cornwell


Chief
      Executive Officer


July
      19,
      2005








*A
      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
      document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
      that
      appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
      has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*
**EXHIBIT      32.2**

| (1)   | the                Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section                13(a) or                15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                and |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date:  | November                14, 2006 | /s/              William M. Salters  |   |
|--------|----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                             | William                M. Salters         |   |
|   |                             | Chief                Financial Officer    |   |
1210-AB32-2-1126.html[7/24/2015 6:15:53 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvq-eb8u

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1620

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

The federal government has no right to tell American citizens how to use there own money. Money that we have

 saved form years of hard work is not the governments money, it is our money. This is just another attempt by the

 government to steal our hard earned money. You do not have a right to the American citizens money.
Indemnity Letter - David Roberts



 Exhibit 4.30 
  

			
		  	Barclays Corporate Secretariat
		  	Level 29
		  	One Churchill Place
		  	London
		  	E14 5HP
	22 June 2005	  	
		
		  	Tel 020 7116 1000
	David Roberts	  	Fax 020 7116 7665
	Chief Executive	  	
	International Retail & Commercial Banking	  	
	Barclays PLC	  	
	Level 31	  	
	One Churchill Place	  	
	London E14 5HP	  	

 

 
 Dear David 
 Indemnity contained in Articles of Association 
 Clause 2.2 of your contract of employment dated 23 December 2003 (“your
contract”) states that your duties as a director of Barclays or any member of the Barclays Group are subject to the Articles of Association of the relevant company for the time being. This letter supplements and forms part of the terms of your
contract. 
 For the avoidance of doubt, the Boards have confirmed that as a director of Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC you have the benefit of and are
able to rely upon the indemnity contained in Article 160 of the Barclays PLC Articles of Association and the identical wording in Article 157 of the Barclays Bank PLC Articles of Association, the terms of which are hereby expressly incorporated into
your contract. Copies of the relevant Articles are attached for your ease of reference. 
 The terms of this letter are governed by English law and the
parties submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English Courts. 
 Yours sincerely 
  

					
	 /s/ Lawrence Dickinson
	 		  	 /s/ Patrick Gonsalves

	Lawrence Dickinson	 		  	Patrick Gonsalves
	Company Secretary	 		  	Joint Secretary
	Barclays PLC	 		  	Barclays Bank PLC
			
	Countersigned by	 		  	
			
	       


	 		  	
	Director	 		  	

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 Barclays PLC. Registered in
England. Registered No: 48839. Registered Office: 1 Churchill Place, London E14 5HP
#### Dunnica, *Appellant,*v. Clinkscales.

Partnership: promissory note. A note executed by the members of a firm in their individual names, and not shown to have been given for the benefit of the firm, is the individual debt of the signers, and not the debt of the firm.

*Appeal from Carroll Circuit Court.*— Hon. E. J. Broaddus, Judge.

Aeeirmed.

*Waters § Winslow*for appellant.

*J. W. Sebree*and *Hale $ Eads*for respondent.

Norton, J.

This cause was tried in the circuit court of Carroll county upon an appeal from the action of John • *501W. Clinkscales,to whom the partnership of Morehead Bros, had made an assignment for the benefit of all their creditors, in allowing against the partnership of said Morehead Bros, certain claims of plaintiff amounting in the aggregate to the sum of $2,126.70. The circuit court, in its judgment, reversed the action of the assignee, and disallowed the said claim as apartnership debt,from which the plaintiff has appealed. It was found as a fact by the trial court that the claim of plaintiff was the individual debt of W. "W. Morehead and T. 0. Morehead, and not .the debt of the firm of Morehead Bros. It is insisted by counsel for plaintiff that the finding was not warranted by the evidence. An article of agreement executed cotemporaneously with the notes on which plaintiff bases his claim was put in evidence, and reading this agreement in connection with said notes we think the finding was justified. It appears from this agreement that the notes were given in settlement of a partnership business which had previous to that time been conducted in the state of Iowa, of which plaintiff and the above named Moreheads were members, but which had ceased to exist. It is expressly provided in the agreement that 'W. W. Morehead and T. O. Morehead were to execute their joint notes to plaintiff, in consideration of which they were to get the assets of the firm. There was not a particle of evidence tending to show that these assets were carried into the business of the new firm of Morehead Bros, at Carrollton, or that they were purchased for any such purpose. Judgment affirmed,

in which all concur.
1210-AB32-2-1464.html[7/26/2015 5:31:24 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 10, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jwf-i4ib

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1960

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: David Chubon

Address:

1421 Terrace View Dr.

Prescott, AZ, 86301

Email: dchubon@yahoo.com

Phone: 7079726508

General Comment

The EBSA's proposed changes to my retirement investments in my IRA by defining fiduciary is unnecessary and

 another overreach by the government into my right to manage my own retirement funds.
1210-AB32-2-1481.html[7/26/2015 5:58:18 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 10, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jwh-r4pl

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1977

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

PLEASE DO NOT INTERFER WITH OUR 401k OR IRA"S. THIS IS MONEY WE SAVED AND WE

 DEFINITELY KNOW HOW TO SPEND IT.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0568.html[7/20/2015 8:59:22 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jva-9m6h

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0568

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Alan Pratt

General Comment

I can control my own monies and plan for my own retirement. This is not the a function of the government. The

 government has shown it is incapable of controlling it's own finances ( $18+ trillion debt) nor keep it's hands off

 of monies already earmarked for specific people/functions (Social Security, etc.).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1576

HARRY S. LEAR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GIANT FOODS INC.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CA-95-3691-JFM)

Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 13, 1996

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harry S. Lear, Appellant Pro Se. Robert G. Ames, Karen D. Woodard,

VENABLE, BAETJER, HOWARD & CIVILETTI, Washington, D.C., for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing

his employment discrimination complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Lear

v. Giant Foods Inc., No. CA-95-3691-JFM (D. Md. Mar. 26, 1996). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Wednesday, November 1, 1995 (138), Para 138.15 Recorded Vote]
[Page 1826]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.138.15  recorded vote

  A recorded vote by electronic device was ordered in the Committee of 
the Whole on the following amendment submitted by Mr. BONILLA:

       Insert on page 58, after line 4, the following section:

REVOCATION OF PROPERTY TAX-EXEMPTION FOR NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

       Sec.   . Effective for taxable years beginning after 
     September 30, 1995, section 4 of the act entitled ``An Act to 
     incorporate the National Education Association of the United 
     States'', Approved June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. 805; Sec. 46-1036, 
     D.C. Code) is repealed.

Yeas

210

It was decided in the

Nays

213

negative

Answered present

2
```
§ 199.9 Preemption of State and local laws. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part preempts any State or local law, rule, regulation, or order to the extent that: ( 1 ) Compliance with both the State or local requirement and this part is not possible;
( 2 ) Compliance with the State or local requirement is an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of any requirement in this part; or
( 3 ) The State or local requirement is a pipeline safety standard applicable to interstate pipeline facilities.
( b ) This part shall not be construed to preempt provisions of State criminal law that impose sanctions for reckless conduct leading to actual loss of life, injury, or damage to property, whether the provisions apply specifically to transportation employees or employers or to the general public.
[Amdt. 199-9, 59 FR 7430, Feb. 15, 1994. Redesignated and amended by Amdt. 199-19, 66 FR 47119, Sept. 11, 2001]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4478

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus QUENTIN VIRGIL WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior District Judge. (1:03-cr-00024-WLO) Submitted: November 17, 2006 Decided: December 13, 2006 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Following a hearing at which Quentin Virgil Williams admitted to violating conditions of his supervised release, the district court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to twenty-four months in prison. Williams appealed. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 366 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting his opinion that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the issue of whether the district court erred in imposing a twenty-four month sentence. The Government did not file a reply brief, and although advised of his right to do so, Williams did not file a pro se supplemental brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. We recently held in United States v. Crudup , 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir. 2006), that we review sentences imposed upon the revocation of supervised release to determine whether the sentence is “plainly unreasonable.” In this case, Williams’s sentence was not above the statutory maximum of two years of imprisonment, the court considered the Chapter 7 advisory policy statement range, andthe court stated a proper basis for sentencing Williams to twentyfour months of imprisonment. SeeCrudup , 461 F.3d at 437. Specifically the court noted Williams’s poor adjustment to supervised release and his repeated violations. Because Williams’s sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable, we find that his sentence is not plainly unreasonable.- 3 - In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm. This court requires that counsel inform Williams, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Williams requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Williams. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately set forth in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 73 FR 33329, June 12, 2008.

§ 40.289 Are employers required to provide SAP and treatment services to employees? ( a ) As an employer, you are not required to provide a SAP evaluation or any subsequent recommended education or treatment for an employee who has violated a DOT drug and alcohol regulation.
( b ) However, if you offer that employee an opportunity to return to a DOT safety-sensitive duty following a violation, you must, before the employee again performs that duty, ensure that the employee receives an evaluation by a SAP meeting the requirements of § 40.281 and that the employee successfully complies with the SAP's evaluation recommendations.
( c ) Payment for SAP evaluations and services is left for employers and employees to decide and may be governed by existing management-labor agreements and health care benefits.
Editorial Note on Part 365
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 365 appear at 66 FR 49870, Oct. 1, 2001.

§ 365.409T FMCSA action and criteria for approval. A transfer will be approved under this section if: ( a ) The transaction is not subject to 49 U.S.C. 14303; and
( b ) The transaction is consistent with the public interest; however,
( c ) If the transferor or transferee has an “Unsatisfactory” safety fitness rating from DOT, the transfer may be denied. If an application is denied, the FMCSA will set forth the basis for its action in a decision or letter notice. If parties with “Unsatisfactory” safety fitness ratings consummate a transaction pursuant to the 10-day rule at § 365.405T prior to the notification of FMCSA action, they do so at their own risk and subject to any conditions we may impose subsequently. Transactions that have been consummated but later are denied by the FMCSA are null and void and must be rescinded. Similarly, if applications contain false or misleading information, they are void *ab initio.*
[82 FR 5300, Jan. 17, 2017]
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer
of CNA Financial Corporation
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350
(As adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of CNA Financial Corporation (the
Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:



| |  |  | the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2003 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: February 27, 2004

/s/ Robert V. DeutschRobert V. DeutschChief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.
Exhibit 24.17



POWER OF ATTORNEY



KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that I, John W. Rogers, Jr. do hereby appoint Frank M. Clark and J. Barry Mitchell, or either of them, attorney for me and in my name and
on my behalf to sign the annual Securities and Exchange Commission report on Form 10-K for 2005 of Commonwealth Edison Company, together with any amendments thereto, to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and generally to do and
perform all things necessary to be done in the premises as fully and effectually in all respects as I could do if personally present.





/s/ John W. Rogers, Jr.John W. Rogers, Jr.




DATE: February 13, 2006
1210-AB32-2-1557.html[7/26/2015 7:33:56 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 11, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jx6-5bs3

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-2054

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Carol Davis

General Comment

I am completely against any further or additional government meddling in our financial affairs! JUST STOP IT

 ALREADY!!! Leave us alone! Believe it or not, WE ARE smart enough to handle our own finances. We

 certainly would have more prosperity and finances to handle if the government would get our of our business. I

 am completely AGAINST these proposed rules.