alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10(b)


                      AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ("Amendment") is entered into
as of April 7, 1999, between JACOBSON STORES INC., a Michigan corporation of
Jackson, Michigan (the "Company"), and PAUL W. GILBERT, of Jackson, Michigan
("Gilbert").

         THE PARTIES HEREBY AGREE that the restated Employment Agreement
between them dated as of June 11, 1998 (the "Agreement"), is amended
effective April 11, 1999, as follows:

         1. Compensation. The phrase "Three Hundred Thousand Dollars
($300,000)" in paragraph 2 of the Agreement is amended to read "Three Hundred
Fifty Thousand Dollars ($350,000)".

         2. Change in Control. The figure "40%" appearing twice in paragraph
5(e)(iii)(1) and once in paragraph 5(e)(iii)(3) of the Agreement is amended
to read "20%".

         Except as expressly amended hereby, the Agreement shall continue in
full force and effect.


IN THE PRESENCE OF:                       JACOBSON STORES INC.


     /s/ Timothy J. Spalding                By:    /s/ P. Gerald Mills
---------------------------------           --------------------------------
                                              P. Gerald Mills
                                              Its:  Chairman of the Board and
                                                      Chief Executive Officer


     /s/ Dana J. Collins                    /s/ Paul W. Gilbert
 --------------------------------       ------------------------------------
                                        Paul W. Gilbert
No. 59004.

protest 237345-K (B) (New York).

#### J. H. Surplus Distributors Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in this case, the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.
Exhibit
4.(a).60.9





Unofficial
Translation





[State
Emblem]





The State of
Israel


Ministry of
Communications





General License of Partner
Fixed Communications Solutions Limited Partnership for the Provision of Domestic
Fixed-Line Telecommunication Services





Amendment No.
9





By virtue
of the powers of the Minister of Communications under Article 4 (e) of the
Communications Law (Telecommunications and Broadcasts), 5742-1982, that have
been delegated to us, by all our other powers under any law and after having
considered the request of Partner Fixed Communications Solutions Limited
Partnership for the Provision of Domestic Fixed-Line Telecommunication
Services,  ("Partner"), we hereby amend the General License for the
provision of Domestic Fixed-Line Telecommunication Services, granted toPartneron 15 January
2007,  as follows:





Amendment
to Annex B




1.
            In
      Annex B, in article 2-List of Services after item no. 45 shall
      come:


"


46.
            Call
      Hijack Service
            When
      a mobile handset rings "it is possible to hijack the call" and to answer
      from a land-line phone after punching a certain code on the land-line
      phone
            October
      2008
            In
      accordance with a service file from 27.10.2008 or any other service file
      approved that will replace it.47.
            Musical
      Waiting Tone Service
            A
      musical waiting tone that is played when calling a subscriber's
      number
            May
      2009
            In
      accordance with a service file from 21.5.2008 or any other service file
      approved that will replace it.





(27 May,
2009)




(sgd)
              
              Haim Giron, Adv.
              Director-General
            (sgd)
              
              Zeev Raz
              Temporary Senior Deputy Director-General
              Engineering and Licensing
clvs-ex1038_282.htm



 

Exhibit 10.38

 

 

Confidential Materials omitted and filed separately with the
Securities and Exchange Commission. Asterisks denote omissions.

 

 

 

First Amendment to License Agreement

 

between

 

Clovis Oncology, Inc.

 

and

 

Pfizer, Inc.

 

 

August 30, 2016

 






FIRST AMENDMENT TO LICENSE AGREEMENT

This First Amendment to License Agreement (the “Amendment”) is effective as of August 30, 2016 (the “Amendment Date”) between Clovis Oncology, Inc. (“Clovis”) and Pfizer, Inc. (“Pfizer”).

Whereas, Clovis and Pfizer are parties to that certain License Agreement between Clovis and Pfizer dated June 2, 2011 (the “Agreement”).

Now, Therefore, in consideration of the foregoing premises and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, Clovis and Pfizer agree as follows:

1.Capitalized terms used but not expressly defined in this Amendment have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.

2.Section 5.1.2 of the Agreement is hereby amended to add a new subsection (d) as follows:

“(d)The Milestone Payments set forth in Section 5.1.2(ii) and payable “Upon FDA approval of an NDA for 1st Indication in US” and “Upon EMA approval of an MAA for 1st Indication in EU” may be paid, at the election of LICENSEE, which election will be provided in writing to PFIZER within five (5) days following the applicable Milestone, either (i) pursuant to the terms of the first paragraph of Section 5.1.2, or (ii) by the date that is 18 months after the achievement of such Milestone and in the amount of *** for each such Milestone that is so deferred by LICENSEE. In the event that LICENSEE does not provide PFIZER with written notice within five (5) days following the applicable Milestone then such Milestone Payment will be made pursuant to the terms of the first paragraph of Section 5.1.2.  LICENSEE at its election may or may not defer each of the (i) FDA approval of an NDA for 1st indication in US or (ii) EMA approval of an MAA for 1st indication in EU Milestones at the time such approval may occur, as applicable.”

3.Except as specifically amended by this Amendment, Pfizer and Clovis agree and acknowledge that the terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect. 

4.This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

In Witness Whereof, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.

Clovis Oncology, Inc.Pfizer, Inc.

By:  /s/ Daniel W. MuehlBy:  /s/ Liz Barrett

Name:  Daniel W. MuehlName:  Liz Barrett

Title:  V.P. FinanceTitle:  Global President, Pfizer Oncology
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER ALLEN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2202 DFL GGH P

vs.

E. ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On June 14, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has not filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that: 

\\\\\

Case 2:04-cv-02202-DFL-GGH Document 15 Filed 08/23/05 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

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 14, 2005, are adopted in full;

and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(b).

DATED: 8/22/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02202-DFL-GGH Document 15 Filed 08/23/05 Page 2 of 2
Before the First Division,

October 13, 1948

No. 52610.

protest 132531-K (New York).

#### Sandoz Chemical Works, Inc. *v.*United States,

*219Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as the estrogenic hormone passed upon in *Roche-Organon*v. *United States*(35 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 378). The claim at 10 percent under paragraph 34 was therefore sustained.
#### State of Kansas, *Appellee,*v. Donald L. Hammond, *Appellant.*

No. 48,240

Opinion filed January 22, 1977.

*J. Paul Maurin, III, M. Warren McCamish,*and *Jay H. Vader,*of Maurin, MeCamish and Vader, of Kansas City, were on the brief for the appellant.

*Curt T. Schneider,*attorney general, *Nick A. Tomasic,*district attorney, and *Thomas L. Boeding,*assistant district attorney, were on the brief for the appellee.

*Per Curiam.*

Affirmed.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4632 

To establish an earlier application processing cycle for the FAFSA. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 8, 2024 

Mr. CASSIDY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To establish an earlier application processing cycle for the 

FAFSA. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘FAFSA Deadline Act 

5 of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FAFSA SUBMISSION DATE. 

7 Section 483(d)(4) of the Higher Education Act of 

8 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1090(d)(4)) is amended by striking ‘‘not 

9 later than January 1 of the applicant’s planned year of 

10 enrollment, to the maximum extent practicable, on or 

11 around October 1 prior to the applicant’s planned year 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4632 IS

1 of enrollment’’ and inserting ‘‘not later than October 1 

2 prior to the applicant’s planned year of enrollment’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
(Reap. Dec. 10096)

#### Gehrig, Hoban & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 839944.

(Decided November 6, 1961)

*Hays, Busty & Rivkin*for tbe plaintiff.

*WilKom E, QrrieJe, Jr.,*Assistapt attorney General, for tbe defendant.

*504MollisoN, Judge:

The above-enumerated appeal for reappraisement relates to certain perfumes, exported from France on or about October 30, 1959.

The appeal has been submitted for decision upon stipulation of counsel, on the basis of which I find that the articles involved are described on the final list (T.D. 54521), published by the Secretary of the Treasury in accordance with the provisions of section 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956; that the proper basis for the determination of the value of said articles is cost of production, as defined in section 402a(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended; and that the cost of production in each instance is the invoiced units, net, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
1... See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-431-CV

IN RE DAVID MICHAEL SHEID RELATOR

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

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is

of the opinion that the petition is moot because the trial court granted relator’s

bill of review in the underlying proceeding. Accordingly, relator’s petition for

writ of mandamus is dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, DAUPHINOT, and GARDNER, JJ.

DELIVERED: January 20, 2009
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SILVIO PASOVIO,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-1385-GEB-DAD-P

vs.

WARDEN STRATON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has

filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General

Order No. 262.

On September 7, 2005, the magistrate judge filed

findings and recommendations herein which were served on

plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed 

Case 2:04-cv-01385-GEB-DAD Document 7 Filed 10/27/05 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

2

within twenty days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the

findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the

magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed September 7,

2005, are adopted in full; and

2. This action is dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.

DATED: October 25, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01385-GEB-DAD Document 7 Filed 10/27/05 Page 2 of 2
Before the Third Division,

April 25, 1961

No. 65506.

#### Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/28388 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that had the complete file been before the collector during his 90-day period for review, the collector would have allowed free entry of the merchandise, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**Exhibit 24**

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

The undersigned does hereby constitute and appoint DOUGLAS A.HABIG, his true and lawfulattorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution and re-substitution, in name, place and stead, to sign the Form 10-K Annual Report ofKimball International, Inc. (and each amendment thereto, if any) pursuant toSection 13 or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, for the fiscalyear ended June 30, 2009, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, andother documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and ExchangeCommission, granting unto the attorney-in-fact full power and authority to signsuch document on behalf of the undersigned and to make such filing, as fully toall intents and purposes as the undersigned might or could do in person, herebyratifying and confirming all that the attorneys-in-fact, or their substitutes,may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

Date: August 18, 2009

| /s/  James C. Thyen      James C. Thyen                                 | /s/  Douglas A. Habig      Douglas A. Habig           |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                                                  |                                                                                |   |
|                                                                                                  |                                                                                |   |
| /s/  Jack R. Wentworth      Jack R. Wentworth                           | /s/  Christine M. Vujovich      Christine M. Vujovich |   |
|                                                                                                  |                                                                                |   |
|                                                                                                  |                                                                                |   |
| /s/  Harry W. Bowman      Harry W. Bowman                               | /s/ Geoffrey L. Stringer            Geoffrey L. Stringer        |   |
|                                                                                                  |                                                                                |   |
|                                                                                                  |                                                                                |   |
| /s/  Thomas J. Tischhauser         Thomas J. Tischhauser |                                                                                |   |
No. 54686.

#### American European Agency et al. *v.*United States,

protests 158830-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
No. *64897.*

#### A. V. Olssen Trading Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 58/18268, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bread similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Nordic Baking & Importing Co., Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 78, C.A.D. 733), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### Ex rel Burley Adair *vs.*Keeper of Jail of County of York

York.

Opinion, December 27, 1950.

Per curiam.

On exceptions to denial of a writ of habeas corpus. In addition to the bill of exceptions there is printed therewith in the record now before this court the petition for the issue of the writ of habeas corpus, the order of a Justice of the Superior Court that the writ of habeas corpus issue, the officer’s return thereon, a petition for release, the docket entries in the case, a transcript of the evidence containing a complete record of the proceedings before the Justice of the Superior Court hearing the writ and his order denying the writ and allowing exceptions thereto. No part of the aforesaid printed record is by reference or otherwise made a part of the bill of exceptions presented in the record.

The court in considering the exceptions cannot travel outside of the bill itself. Without that part of the printed record accompanying the bill of exceptions, including the transcript of the evidence, it is impossible for this court to pass upon the issues intended to be raised by the bill of exceptions. Upon examination of those parts of the record presented to us which are not made a part of the bill of exceptions, and especially the docket entries, it is apparent that the failure to incorporate the same in the bill of exceptions by reference was inadvertent error.

“When errors in pleading or procedure render it impossible to pass upon the issues intended to be raised by a bill of exceptions, and the ends of justice require such action, this court has authority under R. S., Chap. 91, Sec. 14, to order a remand for the correction of such errors.” *Powers*v. *Rosenbloom,*143 Me. 408, 59 Atl. (2nd) 844. *Moores*v. *Inhabitants of the Town of Springfield,*143 Me. 415, 62 *81Atl. (2nd) 210. This is such a case and it is remanded to any Justice of the Superior Court for correction of the bill of exceptions by incorporation therein of the pleadings and evidence and the other aforesaid essential material, in term time or vacation, and the re-entry of the case at the February Term 1951 of the Law Court.

Sitting: Murchie, C. J., Thaxter, Fellows, Merrill, Nulty, Williamson, JJ.
No. 58566.

protests 227235-K, etc. (New York).

#### S. A. Haram & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of herring similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 57760, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v ALBERT V. PARMES, Sergeant, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

21 USCMA 199, 44 CMR 253

No. 24,860

February 18, 1972

*■Colonel George M. Wilson*and *Lieutenant Colonel Norman L. Paul*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel Henry B. Loekington*and *Captain Bruce D. Viles*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

DARDEN, Chief Judge:

The appellant was convicted of premeditated murder and assault in which grievous bodily harm was intentionally inflicted. An en banc Court of Military Review, adopting a circulating panel draft opinion, set aside the finding and sentence and ordered a rehearing. At the rehearing, charges were amended to allege unpremeditated murder and assault with a deadly weapon. To these offenses the appellant pleaded guilty. He now seeks to void his conviction, contending that en banc consideration of a prior Court of Military Review panel decision vitiated the court-martial proceeding.

In United States v Gagnon, 21 USCMA 158, 44 CMR 212 (1972), where decisions of both a panel and the en banc Court were adverse to that appellant, we rejected similar defense contentions, because the benefits to Gagnon from vacation of the latter de-*200cisión and reinstatement of the former eluded us. Holding the en banc decision to be a nullity here in order to permit reinstatement of the panel decision to the same effect would accomplish nothing beneficial to this appellant. We therefore affirm the decision of the Court of Military Review.

Judges Quinn and Duncan concur.
No. 53016.

#### A. Alfandari et al. *v.*United States,

protests 141931-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.