alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.50
​
Certain identified information has been excluded from the exhibit because it is both (i) not material and (ii) would likely cause competitive harm to the Company, if publicly disclosed.
​

Collaborative Research Agreement Amendment No. 7
This Amendment No. 7 is made and entered into as of the last date signed below (the “Amendment 7 Effective Date") to that certain Collaborative Research Agreement dated September 30, 2015 (as amended, the “Agreement”) by and between National Taiwan University at No. 1, Sec. 4, Roosevelt Road, Taipei, 10617 Taiwan (R.O.C) (hereinafter “NTU”) and PTC Therapeutics GT, Inc. (formerly Agilis Biotherapeutics), a Delaware corporation duly organized under law and having an address at 6 Kimball Lane, Suite 320, Lynnfield, Massachusetts, 01940 USA (hereinafter “COMPANY”). Capitalized terms herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement. To the extent of any conflict with the prior amendments to the Agreement, this Amendment 7supersedes the prior amendments.
​
WHEREAS, the COMPANY and NTU previously amended the agreement via Amendments 1 through 6. In Amendment 6, the COMPANY and NTU agreed to a further enroll additional patients for the AADC-011 Phase IIb Protocol studies and related research through December 31, 2020; and an additional research project and corresponding increases in the Budget for [**].   
​
NOW, THEREFORE, the COMPANY and NTU wish to further amend the Agreement as follows:
​
		1.	Extension of the Term: 

​
Per Section 5 of the Agreement, the Parties hereby agree to a extend the Term Agreement from September 30, 2020 to December 31, 2021. 
​
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, both NTU and COMPANY have executed this Amendment 7, in duplicate originals, electronic mail of PDFs or electronic signatures, by their respective and duly authorized officers on the day and year written.
​
[Signature Block to Follow]
​
​
	​


	​



	PTC THERAPEUTICS GT, INC.
	NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY

	​
	Authorized Signature

	By: /s/ Matthew Klein
	By: /s/ Chung-Ming Kuan

	​
	Authorized Signature

	​
	​

	Matthew Klein, MD, MS, FACS
Chief Development Officer
	Printed Name & Title

	​
	​

	Date 14 Sept 2020
	Date:



​

​
Mm: chigan WVotional Bank

In response to the proposed rule change regarding the rate of interest
charged to TT&L depositaries for the use of Treasury funds: MNB would 032
not agree to using a published overnight repurchase agreement rate due

to the increased cost of funding. If the proposed rule passes MNB

would most likely reduce or discontinue to participate in the TT&L

deposit account. Due to the volatile nature of this account, we feel

it is inappropriate to charge an overnight repurchase agreement rate.

Regards,
Cheryl Palmer
p.1 

OAR Box 1672 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

{) ll-C-2 

Docket Number: 

A-98-13 

Printed 9/30/2008 11:01:00 AM Sheet 31 of 132 
P.2 

A-1S-I3 

From: Self <PES1RTP/GLAFLAM> 

To: jbneville@aol.com 

Subject: EPA Information Gathering 

Copies to: STEVE SHEDD <SHEDD.STEVE@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV>, "Jay Helms" 

Date sent: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 09:07:07 -0500 (EST) 

To Brian Neville (ILTA): 

PES is currently collecting information and data related to the 

organic liquids (non-gasoline) distribution industry as one ofthe 

first phases of EPA's NESHAP development. We need to develop an 

industry profile that describes facility operations, including HAP/VOC 

emission points, as well as numbers, sizes, and locations of bulk 

terminal facilities, etc. We are also looking into HAP control 

measures presently in use, including wastewater collection and 

treatment systems that contain features designed to reduce air 

emissions. 

I am sending this message to ask whether your organization has 

performed or knows of any fairly recent surveys or analyses of this 

industry (covering your membership or a broader profile) that would 

contain the sort of information we are seeking. (We have a copy of 

the current ILTA Directory.) Our knowledge ofthe industry will be 

one of the best tools to ensure that this rule is reasonable and 

accurately considers the issues presented to us by our industry 

contacts and other commenters. 

Please get back to me by e-mail or by phone if you can refer us to any 

pertinent information. I will follow up this message with a phone 

call in the next few days if I don't hear from you. 

Thanks for your cooperation, 

Greg LaFlam, PES, Inc. 

(919)941-0333
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-14-0000553 03-JUN-2014 09:05 AM
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

983 

CAF 13-00820 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF KEVEN A. NUNN, 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

MARY J. NUNN, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

 

ROSEMARIE RICHARDS, SOUTH NEW BERLIN, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

JAY D. CARR, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, OLEAN.

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Steuben County (Peter

C. Bradstreet, J.), entered May 1, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to

Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, awarded

petitioner primary physical placement of the subject child. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision

at Family Court.

Entered: September 26, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Exhibit
99.11








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 annual report of Enerplus Resources Fund (the "Fund") on
Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gordon
J. Kerr, President and Chief Executive Officer of EnerMark Inc., on behalf of
the Fund, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(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 results of operations of the
      Fund.




/s/
      Gordon J. KerrGordon
      J. Kerr
              President
      and Chief Executive Officer
              of
      EnerMark Inc.




March
18, 2008




The
foregoing certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18
of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that
section.  Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except
to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by
reference.
Document

Exhibit 4.4


PARK NATIONAL CORPORATION
50 North Third Street
Post Office Box 3500
Newark, Ohio 43058-3500
(740) 349-8451
www.parknationalcorp.com


February 26, 2021






United States Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, NE
Washington, D.C. 20549




Re:     Park National Corporation
Commission File Number:  1-13006
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year
Ended December 31, 2020


Ladies and Gentlemen:


Park National Corporation, an Ohio corporation (“Park”), is today filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Park for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020 (“Park's 2020 Form 10-K”).
Neither (i) Park nor (ii) any of Park's consolidated subsidiaries has outstanding any instrument or agreement with respect to its long-term debt under which the total amount of long-term debt authorized exceeds 10% of the total assets of Park and Park's subsidiaries on a consolidated basis.  In accordance with the provisions of Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of SEC Regulation S-K, Park hereby agrees to furnish to the SEC, upon request, a copy of each instrument or agreement defining (i) the rights of holders of long-term debt of Park or (ii) the rights of holders of long-term debt of a consolidated subsidiary of Park, in each case which is not being filed or incorporated by reference as an exhibit to Park's 2020 Form 10-K.


Very truly yours,
PARK NATIONAL CORPORATION
/s/ Brady T. Burt                                                      
Brady T. Burt
Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer
No. 52142.

protests 495479-G, etc. (New York).

#### B. Altman & Co., Ltd. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 49055.

#### Protests 39599-K, etc., of Stanley Doggett, Inc. (New York).

. Opinion by

Walker, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the vegetable logwood extract passed upon in *Stanley Doggett, Inc.*v. *United States*(10 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 744), which record was incorporated herein, the claim at 20 percent under paragraph 71 was sustained.
No. 58439.

protests 175327-K, etc. (New York).

#### Astoria Pan Americana, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of ficin powder or *leche de oje en polvo*the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Astoria Pan-Americana, Inc.*v. *United States*(32 Cust. Ct. 243, C. D. 1608), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

MIRIAN SCHVOM, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF

ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL NO.

2270,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

ANDREW BEHREND, 

 Plainitff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

ROBERT K. ALDERMAN,

 Plainitff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

CYNTHIA B. GOEPEL,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

MARNA BERKMAN,

 Plantiff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

 

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4093

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

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4105

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

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4149

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

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4180

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

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4197

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

 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4362

Case 2:02-cv-04105-MK Document 6 Filed 09/05/2002 Page 1 of 3
2

ANDREW SPARK,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

RICHARD KIRSCH, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

H.S. SADOW, JR.,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

ERIN FEGAN,

 Plainitffs,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

SCOTT JACOBS, 

 Plainitff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

SAJ DISTRIBUTORS, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

 

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4386

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

CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4387

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

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4476

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

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4530

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

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-6797

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

CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-6993

 O R D E R 

 

AND NOW, this 5th day of September, 2002, upon consideration of Plaintiffs'

Unopposed Motion for Entry of Proposed Case Management Order No. 1 Regarding Consolidation,

Case 2:02-cv-04105-MK Document 6 Filed 09/05/2002 Page 2 of 3
3

Initial Discovery and Stay Pending Appeal, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED.

and Case Management Order No. 1 (Regarding Consolidation, Initial Discovery and Stay Pending

Appeal) is APPROVED.

BY THE COURT:

___________________________

MARVIN KATZ, S.J.

Case 2:02-cv-04105-MK Document 6 Filed 09/05/2002 Page 3 of 3
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 10-1321

DEBORAH MAHER,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN,

Defendant, Appellee.

ERRATA

The opinion of this Court, issued on December 7, 2011, should

be amended as follows.

On page 13, line 8 of footnote 6, insert "to" after "going".
# C_2015337EN.01002801.xml

| 12.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 337/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/28

---

Action brought on 20 July 2015 — Thun 1794 v OHIM — Adekor (graphical symbols)

(Case T-420/15)

(2015/C 337/29)

Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Thun 1794 a.s. (Nová Role, Czech Republic) (represented by: F. Steidl, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Adekor s.r.o. (Loket, Czech Republic)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the design at issue:

Design at issue: Community design No 000840400-0001

Design at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2015 in Case R 1465/2014-3

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of essential procedural rules; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of essential procedural rules;

| — | Infringement of Article 25(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 25(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Misuse of powers. |
| --- | --- |

—

Misuse of powers.

---
Sec. 22a

‐ 66z. (Formerly Sec. 19

‐ 300u). Permits for use of pesticides in state waters. The Commissioner

of Environmental Protection may issue permits for the introduction of chemicals into the waters of the

state for the control of aquatic vegetation, fish populations or other aquatic organisms. Application for

said permit shall be on forms provided by the commissioner and shall be accompanied by a fee

established by the commissioner by regulations adopted in accordance with the provisions of chapter 54

provided the fee shall be not less than twenty dollars. No permit shall be issued without prior approval,

if the proposed application of chemicals involves areas tributary to reservoirs, lakes, ponds or streams

used for public water supply, by the Commissioner of Public Health. Each permittee shall be responsible

for any and all damages resulting from the applications of any pesticide to control aquatic vegetation,

fish populations or other organisms. The commissioner, acting with the Department of Public Health,

may establish regulations governing the use of pesticides in the waters of the state, including the marine

district. The provisions of this section shall not apply to normal, emergency or experimental operations

of the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Public Health or public water supply

utilities, except that chemicals may not be applied to waters used for water supply furnished to the

public or tributary to such water supply without prior approval of the Department of Public Health.

Enforcement officers of the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Public

Health may enforce the provisions of this section.

(February, 1965, P.A. 271, S. 1; 1971, P.A. 872, S. 430; P.A. 77

‐ 614, S. 323, 610; P.A. 88

‐ 246, S. 3, 12;

June Sp. Sess. P.A. 91

‐ 12, S. 35, 55; P.A. 93

‐ 381, S. 9, 39; P.A. 95

‐ 257, S. 12, 21, 58; June 30 Sp. Sess. P.A.

03

‐ 6, S. 116.)

History: 1971 act replaced references to state board of pesticide control, state board of fisheries and

game, shellfish commission and water resources commission with references to commissioner and

department of environmental protection; P.A. 77

‐ 614 replaced department of health with department

of health services, effective January 1, 1979; Sec. 19

‐ 300u transferred to Sec. 22a

‐ 66z in 1983; P.A. 88

‐

246 deleted provision re penalty but see Sec. 22a

‐ 63; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 91

‐ 12 established a fee for a

certificate to apply pesticides; P.A. 93

‐ 381 replaced department and commissioner of health services

with department and commissioner of public health and addiction services, effective July 1, 1993; P.A.

95

‐ 257 replaced Commissioner and Department of Public Health and Addiction Services with

Commissioner and Department of Public Health, effective July 1, 1995; June 30 Sp. Sess. P.A. 03

‐ 6

increased permit application fee from not less than $10 to not less than $20, effective August 20, 2003.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7744

LARRY A. LOVE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-04-23066) Submitted: May 19, 2006 Decided: June 12, 2006 Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry A. Love, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Jeffrey Alan Jacobs, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Larry A. Love seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Love has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 23-3042

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Willie Harbour

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

____________ 

Submitted: January 16, 2024

Filed: January 19, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before BENTON, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Willie Harbour received a 57-month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty 

to a felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm charge. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The two 

issues identified in an Anders brief are the enforceability of an appeal waiver in his 

plea agreement and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. See Anders v. 
-2- 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). A pro se supplemental brief questions the validity 

of the guilty plea itself. 

The challenge to the plea falls outside the appeal waiver, see United States v. 

Schneider, 40 F.4th 849, 853 (8th Cir. 2022), but we conclude that Harbour acted 

voluntarily and knowingly in entering into it and the district court1 had a reasonable 

basis to determine that he committed the offense, see United States v. Frook, 616 

F.3d 773, 775–76 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing for plain error when the defendant did 

not object); see also United States v. Christenson, 653 F.3d 697, 700 (8th Cir. 2011) 

(explaining that facts from the plea agreement and presentence report can establish 

a factual basis). And then, by virtue of the waiver itself, Harbour relinquished the 

right to challenge the reasonableness of the sentence. See United States v. Scott, 627 

F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing the validity of an appeal waiver de novo); 

United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (explaining 

that an appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls within its scope, the 

defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and the waiver, 

and enforcing it would not result in a miscarriage of justice). 

Finally, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that no 

other non-frivolous issues exist.2

 See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988). 

We accordingly affirm for the most part, dismiss the sentencing challenge, grant 

counsel permission to withdraw, and deny the motion to appoint new counsel as 

moot. 

______________________________

1

The Honorable Brian C. Buescher, United States District Judge for the 

District of Nebraska.

2

We did, however, spot a clerical mistake, so we modify the judgment to 

reflect that Harbour was sentenced under 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(8). See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2106.