alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.5


 


AMENDMENT


TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT (Reg. 39 series 3T)


 


Between


 


FIDIA FARMACEUTICI S.P.A. with headquarters in Abano Terme (PD), via Ponte della
Fabbrica 3/A, Italy, VAT No. 00204260285 (hereinafter “Fidia”)


 


and


 


ANIKA THERAPEUTICS S.r.l. with headquarters in Abano Terme (PD), via Ponte della
Fabbrica 3/B, Italy, VAT No. 03641500289 (hereinafter “Anika”)


 


(hereinafter jointly referred to as the “Parties” and singularly referred
to as a “Party”)


 


WHEREAS


 


On December 30, 2009, Fidia and Anika (formerly FAB S.r.l.) entered into a lease agreement
(the “Agreement”), subsequently amended, regarding the lease of a certain Property (as defined in the Agreement)


 


In this Amendment, Fidia and Anika establish the following:


 


		1)	The definitions contained in the Agreement shall have the same meaning in this Amendment to the Lease Agreement.



 


		2)	Effective January 1, 2016, the locations leased to Anika are those indicated in Attachment B to this Amendment to the Lease
Agreement, i.e.:



 


		(1)	portion of the building called F2 (“Building F2 – plans 0008_59 and 0008_02”) with 155 m2 for
warehouse use and 80 m2 for cold storage;



 


		(2)	portion of the building called “Research Institute” (LR1 – plans 0005 and 0006) with 535 m2 for
laboratory use and 1,125 m2 for office use (ground floor and first floor);



 


		3)	As of January 1, 2016, the table included in Section 3.1 shall be replaced by the following table:



 


 



    	-1-



     

    

 





	Area	m2	
        Monthly rent/m2

         

        (Euro)
	
        Monthly rent

         

        (Euro)

         

	
        Research Institute (LR1 – plans 0005 and 006 [sic])
        – Offices

         

        Warehouse (“Building F2 – plan 0008_59”)

         
	1,125	14.96	16,830.00
	155	5.34	827.70
	
        Warehouse

         

        (“Building F2 – plan 0008_02”)
	80	14.96	1,196.80
	
        Research Institute

        (LR1 – plan 0005) – Research Laboratories
	535	17.86	9,555.10
	Totals	1,895	 	28,409.60


 


Therefore, the total amount of rent/month in accordance with the provisions of Section
3.1 beginning on January 1, 2016, is 28,409.60 euros.


 


		4)	The other provisions of the Agreement remain unchanged.



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have signed this Amendment to the Lease Agreement on


 


Abano Terme, February 26, 2016


 


 


FIDIA FARMACEUTICI S.P.A.ANIKA THERAPEUTICS S.r.l.


 





	By: 	/s/ Giorgio Foresti	 	By:
     	/s/ Charles H. Sherwood
	 	Giorgio Foresti, Chief Executive Officer	 	 	Charles Sherwood, President
	 	 	 	 	 






 




 


 


 


-2-
(R.D. 11485)

#### Elof Hansson, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 910160.

(Decided January 30, 1968)

*Sharp, Solter & Hutchison*for the plaintiff.

*Edwin L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> _ IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary ■ of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et seq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. _ That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. _ That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

*777Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.O. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-17-00480-CV

SANTA ROSA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

v.

JESUS F. RODRIGUEZ JR.

On Appeal from the

357th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2017-DCL-01895-E

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and rendered. The 

Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and RENDERS judgment 

dismissing Rodriguez’s claims for lack of jurisdiction.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

December 6, 2018
#### Same v. Same.

Judgment affirmed, without costs of the appeal to either party.
Faulk, Scott (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

donna tangonan <molokai_tango@yahoo.com> 

Tuesday, November 26, 2013 2:42 PM 

scott.faulk@dot.com; EAS (OST) 

EAS KAULAPAPA 

Dear Department of Transportation (DOT) 

.) 

I am writing to support Mokulele Airlines 4-year bid link to Kalaupapa to 

Kahului,Honolulu,Kapalua,Ho'olehua. Mokulele is one of the best airline that i fly inter island they will 

be the best candidate as they have lowers fares experienced agents/ram per, frequent flight, multiple 

islands and ease of booking via Global Distribution system (expedia,travellocity,orbitz,priceline)lts is 

very important we have safe,stable & affordable service to Kalaupapa. I'm born and raise on the island 

and would love more then to see Mokulele Airlines get a chance to prove to our community that fares 

will be lower for travel for personal use doctor visit family vacation ect. ..... I never seen a airline so 

commited to the island state wide to try to provide for every day needs I work for county of maui 

public works. I will bet you this will be the best service that you will elect for this new 4year in to 

Kaluapapa. 

Please select Mokulele to serve Kalaupapa for 4years. 

Mahala Perry Tangonan, 

1
Exhibit
32.2





Certification
of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, A.
Cameron Richardson, 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 March
      31, 2007 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:  February 13,
      2008
            BY:
            /s/ A. Cameron
      RichardsonA.
      Cameron RichardsonChief
      Financial Officer








This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 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
required by Section 906, 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.
Before the First Division,

January 28, 1960

No. 63751. protests 283324-K and 320586-K (New York).

#### The Hecht Co. and R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beads the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *S. H. Kress & Co.*(46 C.C.P.A. 135, C.A.D. 716), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Before the First Division,

January 26, 1967

No. P67/24.

#### Shelby Williams Industries, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 65/16622-15033 (Chicago).

Bao, C. J.

In accordance with -stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of chairs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Shelby Williams Manufacturing, Inc.*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 232, C.D. 2581), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: rgierach@novaspect.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:55:02 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,

Rich Gierach

Thiensville, WI 53092
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                             7
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-30-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          1,269,444
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                 0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                   0
<EQUITIES>                                            0
<MORTGAGE>                                            0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                         0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                1,269,444
<CASH>                                          333,564
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                    0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                2,104,854
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                  56,506
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                              52,480
<POLICY-OTHER>                                        0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                 0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                   9,513
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                        503,384
<OTHER-SE>                                    1,412,883
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  2,104,854
<PREMIUMS>                                      139,872
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              38,845
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                    0
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   72,213
<BENEFITS>                                       79,040
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                       9,791
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (155,970)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (60,828)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (95,142)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (95,142)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (.18)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                        0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                   0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                     0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                      0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                       0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                               0
        

</TABLE>
No. 388.

#### Erie Stone Co. et al. *v.*United States.

*Ross W. Shumaker*and *John J. Kendrick*for petitioners.

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Oberdorfer*and *Melva M. Graney*for the United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 69617.

#### Gallagher & Ascher Company *v.*United States,

protest 63/923-13270 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of parts for semiautomatic scales similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 67716, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THEEXCHANGE ACT AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report ofIntrusion Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ending December 31,2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, G. Ward Paxton, Chief Executive Officer of the Companycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| March 28, 2008 | /s/ G. Ward Paxton      |
|---------------------|-------------------------|
|                | G. Ward Paxton          |
|                | Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

----
From: englishmix@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:53:25 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,

Dean Spooner

Henderson, KY 42420
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2287-2288]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-683]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

21 CFR Part 1308

[Docket No. DEA-345C]

Schedules of Controlled Substances: Temporary Placement of Five 
Synthetic Cannabinoids Into Schedule I; Correction

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), U.S. Department of 
Justice.

ACTION: Notice of Intent; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On November 24, 2010, the Drug Enforcement Administration 
(DEA) published a Notice of Intent announcing its intention to 
temporarily place five synthetic cannabinoids into Schedule I of the 
Controlled Substances Act. This notice corrects two administrative 
errors made in that document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine A. Sannerud, PhD, Chief, 
Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA 
22152, telephone (202) 307-7183, fax (202) 353-1263, or e-mail 
ode@dea.usdoj.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a November 24, 2010, Notice of Intent 
published in the Federal Register (75 FR 71635), DEA announced its 
intention to temporarily place five synthetic cannabinoids into 
schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 
811(h). Due to an administrative error, DEA included in that notice a 
paragraph addressing the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) in the 
``Regulatory Certifications'' section of that document. The provisions 
of the RFA have no application to temporary scheduling orders issued 
under 21 U.S.C. 811(h) or to notices of intention to issue such orders. 
Accordingly, DEA certification under the RFA is not

[[Page 2288]]

legally required for this temporary scheduling order. Therefore, I 
hereby order that this paragraph (the first full paragraph in the right 
column on page 71637), as well as the ``Regulatory Flexibility Act'' 
heading that precedes it, be stricken.
    DEA also inadvertently included in its Notice of Intent a 
certification relating to the Congressional Review Act. The 
Congressional Review Act only applies to ``final'' rules. Accordingly, 
inclusion of the paragraph relating to the Congressional Review Act in 
the Notice of Intent was premature. Therefore, I hereby order that this 
paragraph (the fifth paragraph in the right column on page 71637 and 
continued on the top of page 71638), as well as the ``Congressional 
Review Act'' heading that precedes it, also be stricken.

    Dated: January 7, 2011.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-683 Filed 1-10-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
```
#### Henry S. Billings and another, Respondents, v. Charles C. Houghton and others, Appellants.

Judgment reversed, new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Davis, P. J.
#### Wallace Hewes, Appellant, v. Burnet Forbes and another, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Follett, J.
TS-AMID10/20/40

Attachment #9 

Pt. 2, Sec. B 

Additional Information on the Absence of Tank Truck Cleaning Operations
From: susanince1@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:53:12 AM

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,

susan Ince

Houston, TX 77079