alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.4



 Exhibit 10.4 

THIRD AMENDMENT 
 TO THE
RESEARCH AD LICENSE AGREEMENT 
 This Third Amendment to Research and License Agreement (the “Third Amendment”) is made by and between
The Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd (“TRDF”) and Eloxx Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (“Licensee” or “Eloxx”). 

WHEREAS, TRDF and Eloxx are parties to Research and License Agreement with an effective date of August 29th, 2013 (the “Agreement”), as amended on November 26, 2013 and on January 14, 2014; and 

WHEREAS, the parties desire to continue the relationship contemplated by the Agreement and therefore to further amend the Agreement as set
forth herein; 
 NOW, therefore, the parties hereby agree as follows: 
  

	1.	Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms used in this Third Amendment shall have the meanings assigned thereto in the Agreement. 


 

	2.	Subject to the full execution of this Third Amendment, TRDF and Eloxx agree to further amend the Agreement as set forth herein, provided however, that this Third Amendment shall only become effective upon
and subject to the filing by TRDF and Eloxx of patent application no. 59529 to the USPTO. 

  

	3.	The following shall be added to Section 13.1 of the Agreement: 

 “Notwithstanding the
above, Licensee shall be entitled to disclose Confidential Information that is related to nonsense mutations for genetic diseases 
  

	4.	Except as amended herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

  

	5.	This Third Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Any signature page delivered by facsimile or
electronic image transmission shall be binding to the same extent as an original signature page. 

 IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the parties hereby accept and agree to the terms and conditions of this Third Amendment. 
  

					
	ELOXX PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.	 	THE TECHNION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION LTD.


											
						
	By:	 	 /s/ Shmuel Tuvia
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Oded Shmueli
	 	
	Name: Shmuel Tuvia	 		 	Name: Oded Shmueli	 	
	Title: COO	 		 	Title:	 	
	Date: 9/6/14	 		 	Date: 9/6/14	 	


  
 1
From: canderson28@earthlink.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:04:49 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,

Christopher Anderson

Califon, NJ 07830
From: mydogterry@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:49:35 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,

Jim Cain

Topeka, KS 66604
From: cwc0000@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:01:37 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,

Christopher Camera

Columbus, OH 43221
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dean Black, Also Known as Venton Black, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 823]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Appelman, J.), rendered November 29, 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts) and kidnapping in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing a sentence of consecutive terms of 25 years to life imprisonment for his convictions of murder in the second degree to be served concurrently with a term of 25 years to life imprisonment for his conviction of kidnapping in the first degree.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by directing that the two terms of imprisonment for the defendant’s convictions of murder in the second degree be served concur*605rently with each other; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues that the Supreme Court erred by denying the branch of his omnibus motion which was to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the integrity of the Grand Jury was impaired by the prosecutor’s failure to present, in its entirety, the videotape of one of the defendant’s multiple confessions to the police *(see,*CPL 210.35 [5]; *People v Lancaster,*69 NY2d 20, *cert denied*480 US 922). The prosecutor’s presentation of evidence to the Grand Jury included a reading of the defendant’s signed, written confession. However, the defendant argues that the prosecutor neglected his duty to present a complete version of the defendant’s subsequent, more detailed, and potentially more exculpatory videotaped confession. The defendant contends that the videotaped confession, more than the written confession, contains statements that support the affirmative defense of duress, which the defendant had the burden of proving *(see,*Penal Law § 40.00 [1]; § 25.00 [2]; *People v Bastidas,*67 NY2d 1006). We do not agree with the defendant’s argument.

The prosecutor had no duty to present to the Grand Jury the videotaped confession in its entirety merely because it contains statements that have no counterpart in the previous, written confession and merely because some of those statements could be construed to support the affirmative defense of duress *(see, People v Mitchell,*82 NY2d 509; *cf, People v Falcon,*204 AD2d 181). In presenting the case to the Grand Jury, the prosecutor met or exceeded his obligations by eliciting from a police witness a summary of the contents of the videotaped confession and by delivering a duress charge. Also, the trial jury heard the videotaped confession. Thus, the defendant had an opportunity to present a duress defense. Accordingly, dismissal of the indictment at this stage is not warranted *(see, People v Perry,*187 AD2d 678; *People v Gilliam,*172 AD2d 1037; *People v Isla,*96 AD2d 789).

The People correctly concede that, under the circumstances of this case, the sentences that were imposed for the defendant’s convictions of intentional murder and felony murder must run concurrently with each other *(see, People v Day,*73 NY2d 208, 210). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 390 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          June 5, 2007.
Whereas on December 18, 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt created by 
        proclamation the Arkansas National Forest on reserved public domain 
        lands south of the Arkansas River;
Whereas on April 29, 1926, President Calvin Coolidge issued an Executive Order 
        to change the name of the Arkansas National Forest to the Ouachita 
        National Forest to reflect both the name of the mountains embraced by 
        the national forest and the name of the principal river which drains the 
        national forest;
Whereas Ouachita is the French spelling of a Native American word meaning ``good 
        hunting ground'';
Whereas the Ouachita National Forest today encompasses approximately 1.8 million 
        acres in Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma and offers a variety of 
        recreation areas, scenic areas, wilderness areas, historic resources, 
        and timber and other forest products to the Nation; and
Whereas the Ouachita National Forest is the largest and oldest national forest 
        in the southern region of the United States: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That on the 100th anniversary of the creation of the Ouachita 
National Forest, the House of Representatives recognizes the important 
contributions of the Ouachita National Forest to the success of the United 
States in conserving the environment and ensuring that our natural resources 
remain sources of pride for our citizens, our communities, and our Nation.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
EXHIBIT 21.1
================================================================================


SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

     NEMA Properties, LLC, ("NEMA")is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Registrant.
NEMA is organized under the laws of the State of Texas and is doing business
under the name NEMA Properties, LLC.

     AMEN Minerals, LLC ("Minerals") is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Registrant.
Minerals is organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and is doing
business under the name AMEN Minerals, LLC.

     AMEN Delaware, LLC ("Delaware") is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Registrant.
Delaware is organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and is doing
business under the name AMEN Delaware, LLC.

     W Power and Light, LLC ("W Power") is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Registrant. W Power is organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and is
doing business under the name W Power and Light, LLC.

     Priority Power Management, LLC ("Priority Power") is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Registrant. Priority Power is organized under the laws of the
State of Texas and is doing business under the name Priority Power, LLC.


                                       39
No. 59730.

#### American Far Eastern Syndicate, Inc., and The Lee-Herrmann Co. *v.*United States,

protest 208908-K (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

It was stipulated that for duty purposes the clean content of the wool in question was determined in accordance with the instructions contained in T. D. 53159, which was issued following *United States*v. *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 492). In that case, it was held that the statutory language, clean content of wool, as used in paragraph 1102 (b), was construed to mean the product commercially usable as wool and from which all the weight of grease and foreign material has been removed, including the wool fibers which are unavoidably and irrevocably lost as a result of commercially applied cleaning processes. Accordingly, the wool in question was held dutiable at the rate applied by the collector on the basis of the percentages of clean content as set forth in the column headed “Clean Content (T. D. 53159)” in schedule “A,” attached to and made a part of the decision in this case.
From: jimannemd@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:11:20 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,

James Souders

Frederick, MD 21702
Case No. 8,193.

#### LEE v. LACEY.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 263.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1805.

Slavery — Carrying away Slave — Knowledge of Carrier.

In an action upon the case against the master of a vessel, for carrying, or attempting to carry away the plaintiff’s slave, contrary to the act of Virginia of 25th of January, 1798, §§ 6, 7, the defendant is not liable unless he knew that the slave was on board.

This was an action upon the case upon the statute of Virginia of 25th January, 1798, §§ 6, 7, by [E. J. Lee,] the owner of a slave, against [Benjamin Lacey,] the master of a Georgetown packet-boat, for damages for carrying the plaintiff’s slave from Alexandria to Georgetown, whereby the plaintiff lost the service of the slave from the 29th of April to the 21st of May, and was put to great expense, &c. There were two counts upon the statute, namely, one for carrying away, and the other for attempting to carry away a negro belonging to the plaintiff. There were also several counts at common law.

Mr. Jones and C. Lee, for plaintiff.

Mr. Swann, for defendant.

THE COURT

instructed the jury, that if the defendant had no knowledge of the negro coming on board, nor of his being on board his boat, nor of his going out of his boat in Georgetown, the defendant was not liable; but that if the defendant saw the negro during the passage, or knew of his being on board his boat, and suffered him to land and go at large in Georgetown, he was liable in this actiop for damages if the plaintiff can prove that he sustained any thereby. Verdict for the plaintiff, 120 dollars.
From: danderson78@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:42:31 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,

richard anderson

Phoenix, AZ 85044
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

EFFIE LIGON, as former Manager of IBIS

COMPANY TRUST,

 Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE, PAUL R. SHIPLEY #91-02526,

Revenue Agent, Approving Officer/Group

Manager,

Respondents.

Case No. C05-5599 RBL

ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES’

MOTION TO DISMISS

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon the United States’ Motion to Dismiss.

Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court rules as follows:

The United States filed the instant Motion to Dismiss on November 7, 2005. Pursuant to Local Rule

W.D. Wash CR7(d)(3) the motion was noted for December 2, 2005; therefore, petitioner’s response to the

motion was due on November 28, 2005. Petitioner has failed to file any response to the motion. Pursuant to

Local Rule W.D. Wash. CR 7(b)(2), this Court will consider petitioner’s failure to file an opposition as an

admission that the motion has merit. Furthermore, upon review of the motion, the Court finds that it is welltaken. This Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action. See 26 U.S.C. § 7609.

Therefore, it is hereby 

Case 3:05-cv-05599-RBL Document 8 Filed 12/09/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 2

ORDERED that the United States’ Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. #6] is GRANTED. 

The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing

pro se.

Dated this 9th day of December, 2005.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05599-RBL Document 8 Filed 12/09/05 Page 2 of 2