alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.10

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 4

                                     to the

                                License Agreement

                             Effective June 1, 1987

                                     Between

                               STANFORD UNIVERSITY

                                       and

                                NEORX CORPORATION

        Effective as of July 11, 1997, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND
STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERITY, a body having corporate powers under the laws of the
State of California ("STANFORD") and NEORX CORPORATION, a Washington
Corporation, having a principal place of business at 410 W. Harrison, Seattle,
Washington 98119 ("NEORX"), agree as follows:

                                    AMENDMENT

        2.3 - Paragraph 12.3(a) of the License is hereby amended to read in its
entirety, as follows:

        12.3 (a) - Sublicense terms and conditions shall reflect that any
        sublicensee shall not further sublicense; provided, however, that
        NEORX's proposed sublicensee, JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, may further
        sublicense provided that notification is sent to STANFORD upon signing
        of the sublicense and that any sub-sublicensee may not further
        sublicense; and

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No.
4 in duplicate originals by their duly authorized officers or representatives.

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES                         NEORX CORPORATION
OF THE LELAND STANFORD
JUNIOR UNIVERSITY

By      /s/ [SIGNATURE ILLEGIBLE]             By     /s/ PAUL G. ABRAMS
        --------------------------------             ---------------------------

Title   Director Technology Licensing         Title  President & CEO
        --------------------------------             ---------------------------

Date    July 15, 1997                         Date   7/11/97
        --------------------------------             ---------------------------
EXHIBIT 99.2


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 TM Century, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the year ending  September 30, 2002 as filed with the  Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Teri R.S. James, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as enacted 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 Company.

/s/  Teri R.S. James
-----------------------
Chief Financial Officer

December 20, 2002
EXHIBIT 23.1





INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statement  Nos.
2-99954,  33-6920,  33-41542,  33-41543,  33-60901 and 33-82474 of Sierra Health
Services, Inc. our report dated February 21, 1997 (March 28, 1997 as to Note 14)
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sierra Health Services, Inc. for
the year ended December 31, 1996.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Las Vegas, Nevada
March 28, 1997


<PAGE>
#### DELRICH CORPORATION, etc., Petitioner, v. LaSALLE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, etc., Respondent.

No. 41035.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 1, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN, and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          63,333
<SECURITIES>                                    38,918
<RECEIVABLES>                                  146,963
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (3,726)
<INVENTORY>                                     51,538
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               309,269
<PP&E>                                         109,612
<DEPRECIATION>                                (61,865)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 386,254
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          107,206
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           376
<OTHER-SE>                                     264,470
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   264,846
<SALES>                                        490,225
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               490,225
<CGS>                                          251,049
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  251,049
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,794
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 48,095
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (15,923)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             32,172
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    32,172
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.81


</TABLE>
#### Kenneth Larry BELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-694.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 23, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FETHIYA MUHABA ANBASSE, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-70561 

Agency No. A075-726-256 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 10, 2021**

Pasadena, California

Before: GRABER, CALLAHAN, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Fethiya Muhaba Anbasse, a citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of her motion to reopen based on 

changed country conditions. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we 

review for abuse of discretion, Go v. Holder, 744 F.3d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 2014). 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 14 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

1. Anbasse argues that the BIA erred in affirming the immigration 

judge’s (IJ) finding that her new evidence was inherently unbelievable. But the 

record shows significant inconsistencies between the evidence presented at the 

original hearing and the evidence supporting the motion. See Silva v. Garland, 993 

F.3d 705, 718 (9th Cir. 2021). We find no error.

2. Nor did the BIA err in determining that Anbasse failed to present

material evidence. At the original removal hearing, the IJ found that Anbasse failed 

to testify credibly and had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a 

likelihood of torture. Thus, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that

any evidence of changed country conditions would be immaterial to her claims for 

relief from removal. See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992–97 (9th Cir. 

2008).

3. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in taking administrative notice of 

a fact that could be “accurately and readily determined from official government 

sources and whose accuracy is not disputed.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(iv)(A)(3). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
EXHIBIT 10.21  Amendment Three to Letter Agreement  WHEREAS,
this Amendment Three to Letter Agreement
shall be effective January 1, 2002, and amends that certain Letter Agreement
made between NeoRx Corporation (hereinafter referred to as NeoRx), 410 West
Harrison Street, Seattle, WA 98119, and Bay City Capital BD LLC (hereinafter
referred to as Bay City), 750 Battery, Suite 600, San Francisco, CA 94111, said
original Letter Agreement being dated August 16, 2000 (and agreed to and
accepted by NeoRx Corporation on August 31, 2000) and as amended, and  WHEREAS,
the parties wish to extend the term of said Letter Agreement and further wish
to provide for increased compensation to be paid to Bay City for services
rendered.  NOW,
THEREFORE, the Letter Agreement, as amended, shall be extended to January 1,
2003 and, further, paragraph 5 (a) of said Letter Agreement shall be modified
to provide for increased compensation as follows:  5(a):  A retainer fee of Eighty Thousand Dollars
($80,000) shall be payable by NeoRx to Bay City on a quarterly basis; payment
due dates shall be January 1, April 1, July 1 and October 1.  All
other terms and conditions of the Letter Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect, as stated.  NeoRx
  CorporationBy:Doug
  Given, M.D., Ph.D.Chief
  Executive OfficerBay
  City Capital BD LLCBy:Sanford
  S. ZweifachPresident
#### In the Matter of Budget Rent-A-Car, Appellant. State Insurance Fund, Respondent.

[654 NYS2d 757]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered January 2, 1996, denying petitioner’s application to stay permanently a loss-transfer arbitration instituted by respondent, the State Insurance Fund, pursuant to Insurance Law § 5105, unanimously modified, on the law, to bar all claims for payment made before August 17,1992, and, except as thus modified, affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

On February 19, 1991, Abdelmoez El-Shafaie was involved in an automobile accident and thereafter began to receive first-party no-fault payments from respondent the State Insurance Fund. Pursuant to Insurance Law § 5105 (a), the State Fund commenced an arbitration proceeding on or about August 17, 1995 to recover from petitioner, a self-insured covered person allegedly liable to Mr. El-Shafaie for his damages but for the provisions of article 51 of the Insurance Law, for the benefits the State Fund had paid to Mr. El-Shafaie. Petitioner sought a permanent stay of arbitration on the ground it was time barred by the three-year Statute of Limitations set forth in CPLR 214 (2). The IAS Court, citing *MVAIC v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.*(161 Misc 2d 926, *affd*222 AD2d 292, *affd*89 NY2d 214), held that the State Fund’s claim accrued when the first-party payments were completed, an event which has not yet occurred. Accordingly, the Statute of Limitations had not run and the stay was denied. We modify to bar claims for payments made more than three years before August 17,1995, the date of the State Fund’s demand for arbitration.

On appeal of *MVAIC v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. (supra)*to the Court of Appeals, the Court held that the three-year Statute of Limitations provided in CPLR 214 (2) controls and that the limitations period "begins to run upon the initial payment” to the claimant. (89 NY2d, at 221.) The Court amplified its holding, which involved an aggregate of several payments over a period of time, to state that the Statute of Limitations had run as to the initial payment "and as to all other payments made more than three years before the date of the demand.” *(Supra,*at 222.)

We modify accordingly. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Tom and Andrias, JJ.
EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS.

EARNINGS (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE:  Primary earnings (loss) per common share
are based on the weighted average number of shares outstanding during the
period after consideration of the diluted effect of stock options and
restricted stock awards.  The primary weighted average number of common
shares outstanding was 5,508,667, 5,433,174, and 5,360,982, for the years
ended December 31, 1996, 1995, and 1994 respectively.  Also, fully diluted
earnings per common share assume conversion of dilutive securities when
the result is dilutive.
SCWC-17-0000427

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
JAMES THOMPSON, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-17-0000427; CRIMINAL NO. 97-0-2401)

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ., and Circuit Judge Browning, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused) Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant James Thompson’s Application for Writ of Certiorari filed on December 23, 2018 is hereby accepted and will be scheduled for oral argument. The parties will be notified by the appellate clerk regarding scheduling.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, January 31, 2019. /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ R. Mark Browning Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-17-0000427 31-JAN-2019 11:43 AM
**Exhibit 23**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statementson Form S-8 of Material Sciences Corporation (No.’s 33-00067, 33-40610, 33-41310, 33-57648, 33-81064, 333-15679, 333-15677, 333-33885, 333-33897 and 333-88387) of our reports dated May 19, 2006, relating to the consolidated financialstatements and financial statement schedule of Material Sciences Corporation and management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting (which audit report expresses an adverse opinion on the operatingeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of February 28, 2006 based on criteria established in Financial Control – Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission)appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Material Sciences Corporation for the year ended February 28, 2006. 

Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Chicago, Illinois 

May 19, 2006 

 

1
260 La. 700

#### Oscar Lionel SMITH v. LOUISIANA BANK & TRUST COMPANY et al.

No. 52113.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 11, 1972.

In re: Oscar Lionel Smith applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo. 255 So.2d 816.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

February 23, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00785

- CV

Mary Ann CASTRO

, Appellant

v.

Manuel CASTRO

, Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texa s Trial Court No. 2011

- CI

- 15957 Honorable Janet P. Littlejohn, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant’s motion is DENIED AS MOOT

. We have previously issued an order stating appellant is deemed indigent because the trial court failed to render a ruling on the contest within

the time restraints of Rule 20.1. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(4).

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justi ce

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 23rd day of February, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Cle rk of Court
```

[Federal Register: May 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 99)]
[Notices]               
[Page 28849]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24my10-106]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7026]

 
Review of the Designation of Ansar al-Islam (aka Ansar Al-Sunnah 
and Other Aliases) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization Pursuant to 
Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended

    Based upon a review of the Administrative Records assembled in 
these matters pursuant to Section 219(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)(4)(C)) (``INA''), and in 
consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the 
Treasury, I conclude that the circumstances that were the basis for the 
2004 re-designation of the aforementioned organization as a foreign 
terrorist organization have not changed in such a manner as to warrant 
revocation of the designation and that the national security of the 
United States does not warrant a revocation of the designation.
    Therefore, I hereby determine that the designation of the 
aforementioned organization as a foreign terrorist organization, 
pursuant to section 219 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1189), shall be 
maintained.
    This determination shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: May 6, 2010.
James B. Steinberg,
Deputy Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-12440 Filed 5-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
```
# C_2021320EN.01002501.xml

| 9.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 12 May 2021 — UI v Österreichische Post AG

(Case C-300/21)

(2021/C 320/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: UI

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Österreichische Post AG

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the award of compensation under Article 82 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) (the GDPR) also require, in addition to infringement of provisions of the GDPR, that an applicant must have suffered harm, or is the infringement of provisions of the GDPR in itself sufficient for the award of compensation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the award of compensation under Article 82 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) (the GDPR) also require, in addition to infringement of provisions of the GDPR, that an applicant must have suffered harm, or is the infringement of provisions of the GDPR in itself sufficient for the award of compensation?

| 2. | Does the assessment of the compensation depend on further EU-law requirements in addition to the principles of effectiveness and equivalence? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the assessment of the compensation depend on further EU-law requirements in addition to the principles of effectiveness and equivalence?

| 3. | Is it compatible with EU law to take the view that the award of compensation for non-material damage presupposes the existence of a consequence of the infringement of at least some weight that goes beyond the upset caused by that infringement? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it compatible with EU law to take the view that the award of compensation for non-material damage presupposes the existence of a consequence of the infringement of at least some weight that goes beyond the upset caused by that infringement?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).

---
1





Exhibit 32



ION Networks, Inc.



CERTIFICATION





In connection with the periodic report of ION Networks, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB, as amended by this Form 10-KS/A for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), each of the undersigned officers of the Company, hereby certifies as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of their knowledge:



(1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.













Date:May 31, 2006

By: /s/ Norman E. Corn



Norman E. Corn

Chief Executive Officer







Date:May 31, 2006

By: /s/ Patrick E. Delaney



Patrick E. Delaney

Chief Financial Officer







































2
Document

Exhibit 10.34

ENDORSEMENT NO. 2
to the
TITLE INSURANCE QUOTA SHARE REINSURANCE CONTRACT
(the “Contract”) 
by and among
The Applicable Companies listed in Schedule 1 in relation to the Relevant US State,
(as such Schedule 1 shall be amended from time to time to include additional Applicable
Companies agreed by the Reinsurer and States Title, Inc)
(each an “Applicable Company” and together the “Companies”),
AND
States Title, Inc
(acting as Agent on behalf of the Companies)
AND
SCOR GLOBAL P&C SE – Zurich Branch
General Guisan-Quai 26, 8022 Zurich, Switzerland
(the “Reinsurer”)
(Effective: Date of Policy of first incepting Eligible Policy)
It is hereby noted and mutually agreed that this Endorsement No. 2 shall be made part of the Contract as follows:
1.AGREED PROVISION REGARDING BUSINESS COVERED
1.1Notwithstanding anything in the Contract or any endorsements thereto to the contrary, no Eligible Policy or specially accepted non-Eligible Policy shall be rendered ineligible and no indemnity for any loss or losses thereunder shall be denied based upon the failure of the underlying mortgage loan to meet the eligibility criteria of the applicable investor, government sponsored entity or government agency.
2.GENERAL PROVISIONS
2.1Expressions defined in the Contract and used in this Endorsement have the meaning set out in the Contract.
2.2Expressions not defined in the Contract or this Endorsement but defined by laws, regulations, or rules affecting mortgage loans or real estate transactions shall be interpreted according to such laws, regulations, or rules.
2.3Except as set out in this Endorsement, the Contract shall continue in full force and effect.
2.4This Endorsement will be governed by and construed according to the laws of the State of New York exclusive of that state’s rules with respect to conflicts of laws, however, with respect to credit for reinsurance, the rules of all applicable states will apply.








SIGNING BLOCK
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each Applicable Company, States Title and the Reinsurer have caused this Endorsement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives:
In San Francisco, California , this 21st day of June     , in the year of 2018
On behalf of
STATES TITLE, INC
						
	By:	Maxwell Simkoff
	Signature:	/s/ Maxwell Simkoff
	Title:	Chief Executive Officer


In San Francisco, California , this 21st day of June     , in the year of 2018
On behalf of
STATES TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
						
	By:	Maxwell Simkoff
	Signature:	/s/ Maxwell Simkoff
	Title:	Chief Executive Officer


In San Francisco, California , this 21st day of June     , in the year of 2018
On behalf of
STATES TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA
						
	By:	Maxwell Simkoff
	Signature:	/s/ Maxwell Simkoff
	Title:	Chief Executive Officer


In Zurich, Switzerland, this 22nd day of June     , in the year of 2018
On behalf of
SCOR GLOBAL P&C SE ─ ZURICH BRANCH
									
	
		
	By:	Doris Egli
	Signature:	/s/ Doris Egli
	Title:	Underwriting Manager Credit & Security


2