alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                            EXHIBIT 10.19
[SIGNAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. LETTERHEAD]




March 4, 1994


David W. Anderson, Ph.D.
14446 Trailwind Drive
Poway, CA 92064


Dear David:

Signal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Signal" or the "Company") is pleased to offer you
the position of Vice President, Drug Discovery and Preclinical Development
reporting to Alan J. Lewis (President). Your employment with Signal will
commence on March 24.

Your starting salary will be $165,000 annually, less all required withholding
for taxes and social security. In addition Signal is offering a one time signing
bonus of $25,000 to help you quickly make the transition to join us. You will be
eligible for the standard Company benefits. Signal reserves the right to modify
compensation and benefits from time to time as it deems necessary,

In addition, under Signal's 1993 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the "Plan"), the
Company will offer you an opportunity to purchase outright 200,000 shares of SPI
Common Stock at the current fair market value, subject to approval by the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. Under the Plan, one-fifth
(20%) of the shares will vest on the first day of your thirteenth month of
employment. The remaining shares will vest in equal quarterly installments over
a four year period. The invested shares will be subject to repurchase by the
company at their cost to you, should you leave the company before all shares
have vested. In addition, all shares issued under the Plan are subject to
certain limitations on the sale and use of the stock,

Your employment is for an indefinite term. In other words, the employment
relationship is "at will," and either you or SPI has the right to terminate that
employment relationship at any time.


<PAGE>   2
David W. Anderson,Ph.D.
March 4, 1994
page 2


You will be required to sign an Employee's Proprietary Information and
Inventions Agreement before your employment begins. In addition, you will be
expected to abide by the Company rules and regulations as described in the
Company handbook.

The employment terms in this letter supersede any other agreements or promises
made to you. As required by law, this offer is subject to satisfactory proof of
your right to work in the United States.

Please indicate your acceptance of this offer by signing one of the originals
and returning it to me by the close of business on Wednesday, March 8, 1994, at
which time this offer will lapse.

We have enjoyed our meetings with you and we look forward to your joining the
Signal team. We feel that your experience and enthusiasm can make a substantial
contribution to the success of Signal.


Sincerely,


/s/ ALAN LEWIS (LJC)


Alan J. Lewis, Ph.D.
President



ACCEPTED BY:



/s/ DAVID W. ANDERSON
---------------------------------------
David W. Anderson



3/8/94
---------------------------------------
Date:
# C_2017283EN.01004901.xml

| 28.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/49

---

Order of the General Court of 5 July 2017 — EEB v Commission

(Case T-448/15) (1)

1

((Action for annulment and compensation - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents concerning the withdrawal of Proposal COM(2014) 397 final for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council - Partial refusal of access - No need to adjudicate in part - Partial manifest inadmissibility))

(2017/C 283/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin, E. Sanfrutos Cano and A. Buchet, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by A. Tamás and I. McDowell, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by B. Driessen, E. Rebasti and M. Moore, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, first, under Article 263 TFEU, for, primarily, the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 1 June 2015 and, in the alternative, the annulment of an implied refusal and, secondly, under Article 268 TFEU, for repair of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that measure.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the application for annulment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the application for annulment.

| 2. | The action is dismissed as to the remainder as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The action is dismissed as to the remainder as manifestly inadmissible.

| 3. | The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Environmental Bureau (EEB). |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Environmental Bureau (EEB).

| 4. | The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union are ordered to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union are ordered to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.

1

---
**
**Exhibit 31**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, John W. DeCero, certifythat: 

 
 1.
I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K, of California Republic Auto Receivables Trust2016-1 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

 
 2.
Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 
 3.
Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided underForm 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 

 
 4.
Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 ofRegulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and 

 
 5.
All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and theirrelated attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described insuch reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certificationsabove, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: U.S. Bank, National Association, as indenture trustee, and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as owner trustee of the issuing entity. 

Date: March 25, 2020 

By:/s/ John W. DeCero

John W. DeCero, Chief Executive Officer 

California Republic Funding LLC, Depositor 
**
# C_2016222EN.01005003.xml

| 20.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/50

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 May 2016 — Grzebielec v Commission

(Case F-96/15) (1)

(2016/C 222/80)

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 7/9/2015, p. 84.

---
# C_2016454EN.01002202.xml

| 5.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 454/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 454/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2016 — Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten v EUIPO — Mareea Comtur (airpass.ro)

(Case T-14/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark airpass.ro - Earlier EU word mark AirPlus International - Opposition dismissed - Rule 21 of Regulation (EC) No 2865/95 - No need to adjudicate - Article 81(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 454/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH (Neu Isenburg, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: V. Melgar and H. Kunz, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: SC Mareea Comtur SRL (Deva, Romania)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 October 2014 (Case R 1918/2013-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten and SC Mareea Comtur.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 17 October 2014 (Case R 1918/2013-5) in so far as it concerns ‘advertising; business management; business administration; office functions’ in Class 35 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks, of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 17 October 2014 (Case R 1918/2013-5) in so far as it concerns ‘advertising; business management; business administration; office functions’ in Class 35 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks, of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and those incurred by Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and those incurred by Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH.

---

(1)  OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 505 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 505

  Authorizing the taking of a photograph in the Chamber of the United 
                             States Senate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 8, 2006

     Mr. Frist (for himself and Mr. Reid) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Authorizing the taking of a photograph in the Chamber of the United 
                             States Senate.

    Resolved,  That paragraph 1 of rule IV of the Rules for the 
Regulation of the Senate Wing of the United States Capitol (prohibiting 
the taking of pictures in the Senate Chamber) be temporarily suspended 
for the sole and specific purpose of permitting an official photograph 
to be taken of Members of the United States Senate on June 13, 2006.
    Sec. 2. The Sergeant at Arms of the Senate is authorized and 
directed to make the necessary arrangements therefore, which 
arrangements shall provide for a minimum of disruption to Senate 
proceedings.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2016410EN.01003405.xml

| 7.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 410/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 410/34

---

Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Cham v Council

(Case T-470/15) (1)

1

(2016/C 410/56)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.

1

---
# C_2019413EN.01003901.xml

| 9.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 413/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 413/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — Luxembourg and Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe v Commission

(Cases T-755/15 and T-759/15) (1)

(State aid - Aid granted by Luxembourg - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and unlawful and ordering its recovery - Tax ruling - Advantage - Arm’s length principle - Selectivity - Presumption - Restriction of competition - Recovery)

(2019/C 413/46)

Languages of the case: French and English

Parties

Applicant in Case T-755/15: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented initially by: D. Holderer and T. Uri, subsequently by T. Uri, acting as Agents, and initially by D. Waelbroeck, S. Naudin and A. Steichen, subsequently by D. Waelbroeck and A. Steichen, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-759/15: Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Rodríguez, Solicitor, G. Maisto and M. Engel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P.-J. Loewenthal and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Ireland (represented, in Case T-755/15, initially by: E. Creedon, G. Hodge and A. Joyce, subsequently by G. Hodge, M. Browne and A. Joyce, and finally by A. Joyce and J. Quaney, acting as Agents, and by P. Gallagher and M. Collins, Senior Counsel, B. Doherty and S. Kingston, Barristers, and, in Case T-759/15, initially by E. Creedon, G. Hodge, K. Duggan and A. Joyce, subsequently by G. Hodge, K. Duggan, M. Browne and A. Joyce, and finally by A. Joyce and J. Quaney, acting as Agents, and by M. Collins and P. Gallagher, Senior Counsel, S. Kingston and B. Doherty, Barristers)

Re:

Applications pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2326 of 21 October 2015 on State aid SA.38375 (2014/C ex 2014/NN) which Luxembourg granted to Fiat (OJ 2016 L 351, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Joins Cases T-755/15 and T-759/15 for the purposes of the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Joins Cases T-755/15 and T-759/15 for the purposes of the judgment;

| 2. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the actions;

| 3. | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in Case T-755/15; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in Case T-755/15;

| 4. | Orders Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission in Case T-759/15; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission in Case T-759/15;

| 5. | Orders Ireland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders Ireland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

IN RE THE PETITION OF

DILLON HASKELL

PR 20-0004 FILED

JUN 3 0 2020

Bowen Greenw000

Clerk of Supreme Cour.

State of Montan:,

ORDER

Dillon Haskell has petitioned this Court for admission to active status in the State

Bar of Montana after having been on inactive status since October 2018.

IT IS ORDERED that upon payment of the appropriate fees to the State Bar of

Montana, Petitioner shall be admitted to the active practice of law in the state of

Montana.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within six months of the date of this Order,

Petitioner shall submit to the Board of Continuing Legal Education, P.O. Box 577,

Helena, MT 59624, proof of attendance at thirty hours of approved Continuing Legal

Education to be credited to the time Petitioner was on inactive status.

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to Petitioner and to the State

Bar of Montana.

DATED this day of June, 2020.

For the Court,

Chief Justice

06/30/2020

Case Number: PR 20-0004
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

The U.S. Small Business Administration National Small Business Development Center Advisory Board will be hosting a public meeting via conference call to discuss such matters that may be presented by members, and the staff of the U.S. Small Business Administration or interested others. The conference call will take place on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 at 1 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. 

The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the initial White Paper draft regarding management of the SBDC program, and arrangements for the Board site visit in June to visit the Ohio SBDC network in Columbus. 

Anyone wishing to make an oral presentation to the Board must contact Erika Fischer, Senior Program Analyst, U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Small Business Development Centers, 409 3rd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, telephone (202) 205-7045 or fax (202) 481-0681. 

Matthew Teague, 

Committee Management Officer.

 [FR Doc. E7-8021 Filed 4-25-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
pol

ProcessIDstateIDcountyIDyearIDsource TypeIDfuel TypeIDIM ProgramIDinspect

Freq test StandardsID begModel

YearID endModel

YearID use

IMyncompliance Factor 101 47 47157 2013 21 1 1 1 11 1974 1995N 83.16 101 47 47157 2013 21 1 10 1 51 1996 2011N 83.16 101 47 47157 2013 31 1 1 1 11 1974 1995N 83.16 101 47 47157 2013 31 1 10 1 51 1996 2011N 83.16 101 47 47157 2013 32 1 1 1 11 1974 1995N 83.16 101 47 47157 2013 32 1 10 1 51 1996 2011N 83.16 101 47 47157 2013 52 1 1 1 11 1974 1995N 83.16 101 47 47157 2013 52 1 10 1 51 1996 2011N 83.16 102 47 47157 2013 21 1 1 1 11 1974 1995N 83.16 102 47 47157 2013 21 1 10 1 51 1996 2011N 83.16 102 47 47157 2013 31 1 1 1 11 1974 1995N 83.16 102 47 47157 2013 31 1 10 1 51 1996 2011N 83.16 102 47 47157 2013 32 1 1 1 11 1974 1995N 83.16 102 47 47157 2013 32 1 10 1 51 1996 2011N 83.16 102 47 47157 2013 52 1 1 1 11 1974 1995N 83.16 102 47 47157 2013 52 1 10 1 51 1996 2011N 83.16 112 47 47157 2013 21 1 8 1 43 1996 2006N 83.16 112 47 47157 2013 31 1 8 1 43 1996 2006N 83.16 112 47 47157 2013 32 1 8 1 43 1996 2006N 83.16 112 47 47157 2013 52 1 7 1 41 1996 2006N 83.16 112 47 47157 2013 52 1 8 1 43 2007 2011N 83.16 113 47 47157 2013 21 1 8 1 43 1996 2006N 83.16 113 47 47157 2013 31 1 8 1 43 1996 2006N 83.16 113 47 47157 2013 32 1 8 1 43 1996 2006N 83.16 113 47 47157 2013 52 1 7 1 41 1996 2006N 83.16 113 47 47157 2013 52 1 8 1 43 2007 2011N 83.16 301 47 47157 2013 21 1 10 1 51 1996 2011N 83.16 301 47 47157 2013 31 1 10 1 51 1996 2011N 83.16 301 47 47157 2013 32 1 10 1 51 1996 2011N 83.16 301 47 47157 2013 52 1 10 1 51 1996 2011N 83.16 302 47 47157 2013 21 1 10 1 51 1996 2011N 83.16 302 47 47157 2013 31 1 10 1 51 1996 2011N 83.16 302 47 47157 2013 32 1 10 1 51 1996 2011N 83.16 302 47 47157 2013 52 1 10 1 51 1996 2011N 83.16
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-3985

_____________________________

JESSE MOODY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Marianne L. Aho, Judge.

June 17, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WETHERELL, WINSOR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Greg Caracci, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
# C_2017369EN.01001001.xml

| 30.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 369/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 369/10

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2017 — RP Technik v EUIPO — Tecnomarmi (RP ROYAL PALLADIUM)

(Case T-768/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - EU figurative mark RP ROYAL PALLADIUM - Earlier EU word mark RP - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 369/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: RP Technik GmbH Profilsysteme (Bönen, Germany) (represented by: P.-J. Henrichs, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Tecnomarmi Snc Di Gatto Omar & C. (Treviso, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 October 2015 (Case R 2061/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between RP Technik and Tecnomarmi.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders RP Technik GmbH Profilsysteme to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders RP Technik GmbH Profilsysteme to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.

1

---