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



Exhibit 10.46
 [*Confidential treatment has been requested as to certain portions of this document. Each such
portion, which has been omitted herein and replaced with an asterisk [***], has been filed
separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.]
 FIRST AMENDMENT
 DATED AS OF DECEMBER 4, 2006
 TO
 PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT AND LICENSE AGREEMENT
 BY AND BETWEEN
 NASTECH PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY INC.
 AND
 PROCTER & GAMBLE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
 DATED AS OF JANUARY 27, 2006




---



##### 



[*Confidential treatment has been requested as to certain portions of this document. Each such
portion, which has been omitted herein and replaced with an asterisk [***], has been filed
separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.]
 FIRST AMENDMENT
TO
PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT AND LICENSE AGREEMENT
    Amendment
  [***] [***]
 [***] [***]
  [***]
 [***] [***]
  [***]
 1




---



##### 



[*Confidential treatment has been requested as to certain portions of this document. Each such
portion, which has been omitted herein and replaced with an asterisk [***], has been filed
separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.]
   [***]
 [***]
  [***]
   [***]
 [***] [***] provided
 2




---



##### 



[*Confidential treatment has been requested as to certain portions of this document. Each such
portion, which has been omitted herein and replaced with an asterisk [***], has been filed
separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.]
 [***]
  Miscellaneous
     3




---



##### 



[*Confidential treatment has been requested as to certain portions of this document. Each such
portion, which has been omitted herein and replaced with an asterisk [***], has been filed
separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.]
  NASTECH PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY INC.By:


    /s/ Steven C. QuayName:
    
    Steven C. QuayTitle:
    
    Chief Executive Officer and PresidentPROCTER & GAMBLE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.By:


    /s/ Mark A. CollarName:
    
    Mark A. CollarTitle:
    
    PresidentP&G Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
 4




---



##### 



[*Confidential treatment has been requested as to certain portions of this document. Each such
portion, which has been omitted herein and replaced with an asterisk [***], has been filed
separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.]
 
 [***]
 5




---



##### 



[*Confidential treatment has been requested as to certain portions of this document. Each such
portion, which has been omitted herein and replaced with an asterisk [***], has been filed
separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.]
 
 [***]
 6




---



##### 



[*Confidential treatment has been requested as to certain portions of this document. Each such
portion, which has been omitted herein and replaced with an asterisk [***], has been filed
separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.]
 
 [***]
 7
From: Ken Belding 

Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 2:16 PM 

To: 'mohammed.kahn@ee.doe.gov' 

Subject: Request for information regarding possible standby and off mode energy use for 

unvented heaters

 

Responses to the questions :

 

1. yes we manufacture vent free units

 

 yes we have competitors in this product category 

 

 I believe the ranges of btu are from approximately 6,000 btu's to a maximum of 40,000 btu for 

residential use . There may be some who will get to the 6,000 by having ( 2 ) , 3,000 btu plaques 

that burn independently and together to create 6,000 btu .

 

 The pilots will burn approximately 750 to 1,000 btu .

 

2. We market for Procom and they also sell a vent free unit that has an electronic operating pad 

. I believe this requires electrical energy even in the stand-by / off mode . Not unlike many electric 

appliance such as a television that are using electricity in the stand-by / off mode .

 

 I do not know the wattage but believe it to be a very very small amount .

 

3. We do not manufacture and I am not aware of the companies who might manufacture electric 

units .

 

4. There was a study conducted in 1996 by the American Gas Association Research Division 

that used a 4-5 minute on and 10-16 minute off period . This study was trying to establish the 

indoor air quality effects by burning vent free heaters indoors .

 

 This data indicates the time percentage of on vs. off and is independent of a season as you 

propose . The season could be whatever you want it to be as indicated by the hours you are 

suggesting . 

 

5. As you are aware these units are 100% efficient . Any study should indicate that all energy , 

whether standby in the form of a pilot or when the unit is burning at full capacity is being burned 

as efficiently as it can be , 100% .

 

6. We do not manufacture electric heaters and therefore we have no opinion . The minimal 

energy use by any stand-by mode on a gas unit by an electronic touch pad can be subjected to 

any industry accepted standard .

 

Thank you 

 

Ken Belding 

VP Delivery Support Services

Empire Comfort Systems

800 851 3153 ph.

800 443 8648 fax

kbelding@empirecomfort.com
From: dlander@ag.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:29:56 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Don Lander

Nixa, MO 65714
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-1 (Nos. 333-164739 and 333-164738) and on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-157291, 333-153362, 333-164742 and 333-171947) of GigOptix, Inc. of our report dated March 31,2010 relating to the financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2009, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

San Jose, California 

March 1, 2011
From: livmelton@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:12:23 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Kelley Melton

Denison, TX 75020
From: jennie.gilchrist@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:10:53 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Jennie Gilchrist

Dallas, TX 75225
Exhibit 32.1

      Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I,  A.  Cameron Richardson, President and Chief Financial Officer of Aurora Gold
Corporation  (the  "Company"),  certify,  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that  to  my  knowledge:

1.   The  Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-QSB  of  the  Company  for  the period
     ended  June  30,  2005  which this certification accompanies 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.


Date:  August 9, 2005                BY:  /s/ A. Cameron Richardson
       --------------                     -------------------------
                                          A. Cameron Richardson
                                          President and Chief Financial Officer
From: giroirbd01@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:30:48 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Barbara Giroir

, 70748-3102
Exhibit 32.1

Statement





Pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officer of Luxemburg Bancshares, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that to the knowledge of the undersigned:



(1)

the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.





Dated:  August 18, 2005





/s/ John A. Slatky

John A. Slatky

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Luxemburg Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by Luxemburg Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.  This statement accompanies the periodic report to which it relates and shall not be deemed as filed as part of the report or otherwise for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Exhibit 4.14



 Exhibit 4.14 
 CONSENT OF EXPERT 
 January 7, 2013 

I, Hrayr Agnerian, M.Sc. (Applied), P.Geo., hereby consent to (1) the references to my name included or incorporated by reference in the
registration statement on Form F-80 of Denison Mines Corp. in connection with the report entitled “Technical Report on the Hairhan Uranium Exploration Property in Mongolia” dated March 23, 2011, and (2) all other references to
the undersigned included or incorporated by reference in the registration statement on Form F-80 of Denison Mines Corp. dated January 2013. 
  

					
			
	/s/ Hrayr Agnerian	 		 	 
	 Hrayr Agnerian, M.Sc. (Applied), P.Geo.
Exhibit 99.2


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


     In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Booth Creek Ski Holdings,  Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 2, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned, as the President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          Section 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.


June 16, 2003


                                          By:    /s/ CHRISTOPHER P. RYMAN
                                            ------------------------------------
                                                     Christopher P. Ryman
                                           President and Chief Operating Officer
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-85,408-01

EX PARTE PEDRO VALENTIN-ESCOBAR, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. F-2014-1145-A WHC-1 IN THE 16 DISTRICT COURT

TH

FROM DENTON COUNTY

ALCALA, J., filed a concurring opinion in which JOHNSON, J., joined.

CONCURRING OPINION

Ijoin this Court’s remand order because I agreewith its observation that applicant has alleged

facts that “if true, might entitle him to relief.” Because applicant has pleaded a colorable

ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, Iwould orderthe habeas court on remand to appoint counsel

for him upon request if he is indigent, regardless of whether the trial court holds a hearing. See Ex

partePointer, 492 S.W.3d 318, 320-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (per curiam) (Alcala, J., concurring).

At a minimum, however, in addition to this Court’s order’s current admonition that the appointment

of counsel is mandatory for an indigent applicant upon request if the habeas court holds a hearing,

I would include a further admonishment that an indigent applicant is “entitled” to the appointment

of counsel upon request “if the court concludes that the interests of justice require representation.” 

See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ART. 1.051(d).

Filed: October 5, 2016

Do Not Publish
NMDMB 09-93

DRAFT

LEGAL GUIDANCE

SALE OR EXCHANGE OF MEDICAL ASSETS

Nothing man-made lasts forever. During the
course of normal operations, it is in-
evitable that the managers of the Navy's
Medical Treatment Facilities (MTF) and
Dental Treatment Facilities (DTF) will
become the custodians of personal property
that can no longer be used safely. Ranging
from expired pharmaceuticals and plasma to
items of medical equipment that have become
obsolete or unserviceable, this property,
while not excess to the Navy's needs,
requires replacement. In an effort to keep
expenditures of the funds available for
new supplies to a minimum or to expand
their purchasing power, MTF/DTF officials
may be tempted to exchange or sell off the
old items in their possession. However,
this is an area where caution is warranted,
and obtaining the advice of legal counsel
in advance is advisable.

Per subpart 217.70 of the Defense Acquisi-
tion Regulation supplement (DFARS), the
Navy has the legal authority to exchange
certain types of Government-owned assets
concurrent with the acquisition of similar
items of property. In such transactions,
the exchange allowance constitutes a
trade-in credit and must be applied against
the purchase price of replacement property
being acquired at the same time. The
categories of property eligible for ex-
change and the applicable procedural re-
quirements are described in DODINST
4140.51.

In contrast, Navy officials generally do
not have the legal authority to sell
Government-owned materiel in their cus-
tody, retain the proceeds generated by the
sale, and use those proceeds to purchase
other goods at some future time. Absent
special statutory authority, this course
of action is considered by Congress to be
an unauthorized augmentation of ap-
propriated funds and is prohibited. Ac-
cordingly, any cash received from the sale
of Navy medical supplies or equipment would
have to be deposited in the U.s. Treasury
as miscellaneous receipts. Neither the
MIF/DTF nor the Navy would be allowed to
retain or expend them.

NMLC point of contact is Mr. John R. Osing,
Jr., Office of the Counsel, who may be
xeached at (301) 619-2157 or by DSN at
343-2157.
From: d.brooker@mchsi.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:55:34 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Denny Brooker

Sugar Grove, IL 60554