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

Exhibit 10.1





October 31, 2022


Exicure, Inc.
2430 N. Halsted St.
Chicago, IL 60614


Re:  Securities Purchase Agreement


To Whom It May Concern:


Reference is made to the Securities Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of September 26, 2022, by and between Exicure, Inc. (the “Company”) and CBI USA, Inc. (the “Purchaser”).  Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement.


In connection with the transaction contemplated by the Agreement, the Purchaser would like to confirm and clarify certain agreements with the Company.  


With respect to director designation rights provided by Section 4.2 of the Agreement, the parties will reasonably cooperate to determine the composition of the Board as of the Closing and agree that, so long as the Purchaser has not sold any shares of Common Stock causing it to not hold a majority of outstanding shares of Common Stock as of the Closing, the Purchaser Designees will constitute a majority of the Board as of immediately after the Closing.  The parties further agree that the director designation rights provided by Section 4.2 may be exercised by Purchaser acting together with its Affiliates and any “group” (within the meaning of Rule 13d-5 under the Exchange Act) of which it or they are then a member, with the number of Purchaser Designees proportional to the beneficial ownership of Purchaser and its Affiliates and any such group. For the purposes of clarity, it is the parties’ intentions that any director designation rights provided by Section 4.2 of the Agreement will be in compliance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5640 (the “Voting Rights Rule”). 


In addition, the Company will keep the Purchaser reasonably informed as to the nature of its communications with Nasdaq with respect to the Company’s plan to regain compliance with Nasdaq’s continued listing standards or any discussions with Nasdaq that would reasonably be expected to impact the Company’s ability to satisfy the closing condition set forth in Section 5.1(d) of the Agreement.  The Company will use its reasonable best efforts to ensure the Company (1) is listed on Nasdaq at the time of the Closing and (2) achieves material compliance with Nasdaq’s continued listing standards immediately after giving effect to the Closing.


[Signature page follows]














Please acknowledge your agreement with the foregoing by signing this letter agreement where indicated below.
         Sincerely, 


						
		CBI USA, Inc.
		
		By: /s/ Kyungwon Oh

		Name: Kyungwon Oh
		Title: Chief Executive Officer




Accepted and agreed to as 
of the date set forth above:


Exicure, Inc.
			
	By: /s/ Matthias Schroff

	Name: Matthias Schroff
	Title: Chief Executive Officer














2
n o Nicholoflf Way „cN'^^*«8e of^ 

ty* ^jt ^ V-. 

P.O. Box 1388 ^* .^Hf^ ^ ^ 

Cordova, Alaska 99574-1388 

P(907)424-7738 • F(907)424-7739 ^PARTMcNTOF 

^: OPER/VTIONS www.nvciyak.org 

10,000 years in our Tntditional Humelaii^ P^ce'WilU^m Sbufld, tbe Copper River Deltaf& the gSf of Alaska 

January 12,2011 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Re: Continuation of Alaska Airlines' Essential Air Service at Cordova. Gustavus. Petersburg. 

Wrangell. and Yakutat. Alaska. Docket OST-1998-4899 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

This letter is to express strong support for the selection of Alaska Airlines to continue to provide 

essential air service to our community. 

Alaska's current pattern of service - using jet aircraft - meets crucial needs that would be difficult, if not 

impossible, to meet with any other type of service or aircraft type: 

Alaska's service connects Southeast Alaska passengers to one or more major communities of interest, 

with single-plane service to Anchorage, Juneau, Ketchikan or Seattle. From these hubs, our 

community can access the airline's extensive route system and benefit from its marketing relationships 

with other carriers. The 737-400 combination ("combi") passenger and cargo aircraft, which Alaska 

Airlines proposes to continue using on this route, provides freight, mail and cargo capacity that a nonjet carrier simply cannot provide. Further, the 737-400 combi aircraft is equipped with Required 

Navigation Performance Technology precision technology, which enables the airline to reliably access 

the airport during Inclement weather, thus reducing diversions and cancellations and, in turn, enabling 

people and products to dependably reach the community. In sum, Alaska's jet service is critical to the 

economic well being of our community. 

For these reasons, we respectfully urge DOT to select Alaska Airlines to continue to provide essential 

air service to Southeast Alaska, as the airline has successfully done for more than thirty years. 

Sincerely, 

dno ^ OihyyOtA 

Angela Arnold, Executive Director 

Native Village of Eyak 

cc: Susan Kurland, Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs 

Dennis DeVany, Chief, EAS and Domestic Analysis 

The Honorable Sean Parnell, Governor, State of Alaska 

Marc A. Luiken, Commissioner, Alaska State Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
# C_2011291EN.01000501.xml

| 4.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 291/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 291/5

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

2011/C 291/03

Image

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Finland

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Finland

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), the Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the Community providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country: Finland

Subject of commemoration: The 200th anniversary of the Bank of Finland

Description of the design: The centre of the coin shows the Finnish national bird, whooper swan. The swan's wing separates the years ‘1811’ (bottom right) and ‘2011’ (centre left). The letter ‘V’ in the left armpit of the swan stands for the surname of the designer, Hannu Veijalainen. At the bottom of the inner ring, the indication of the issuing country ‘FI’ and the mintmark appear.

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued: 1,5 million

Date of issue: October 2011

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---
Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 1 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

WILSON JOHN MACHADO AND JOREMA 

CABRERA ARELLANO v. ERIC H. 

HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY

GENERAL

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED 

STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08–7721. Decided March 1, 2010 

The motion of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are

granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the

Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of the 

position asserted by the Solicitor General in her brief for 

the respondent filed August 26, 2009. 

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA, 

JUSTICE THOMAS, and JUSTICE ALITO join, dissenting.

I dissent from the Court’s decision to grant the petition,

vacate the judgment, and remand the case. The Court 

does this in deference to the Government’s suggestion that

the Court of Appeals ignored petitioners’ nonconstitutional 

claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Government 

does not, however, take the position that the judgment 

reached by the Court of Appeals was incorrect, and this

Court has not independently examined the merits of that 

judgment. In such circumstances, there are insufficient 

grounds for vacating the judgment below. See Nunez v. 

United States, 554 U. S. ___, ___ (2008) (SCALIA, J., 

dissenting).

This disposition is especially inappropriate in this case, 

as petitioners do not appear to have raised—in the Court

of Appeals or in their petition for certiorari—the claim 

that the Government asserts was ignored by the Court of

Appeals. Petitioners argued below that their counsel’s 
2 MACHADO v. HOLDER 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

poor performance deprived them of their constitutional 

right to the effective assistance of counsel. But they did 

not explicitly assert a right to effective assistance based on 

any source of law other than the Constitution. In their 

petition for certiorari, moreover, petitioners disclaimed 

any nonconstitutional basis for relief when they argued

that, by denying the existence of a constitutional right to

the effective assistance of counsel, the Fourth Circuit’s 

decision “allow[s] no recourse for a particular alien against 

dishonest or corrupt immigration practitioners.” Pet. for 

Cert. 11 (emphasis added). This sentence would make no 

sense if petitioners were advancing both constitutional 

and nonconstitutional grounds for relief on their claim. 

Instead of granting, vacating, and remanding, I would 

deny the petition for certiorari.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000072741
<NAME> NORTHEAST UTILITIES AND SUBSIDIARIES
<MULTIPLIER>1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1995
<BOOK-VALUE>                                       PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                         7,000,837
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                         505,897
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                              917,409
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                          2,120,823
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   10,544,966
<COMMON>                                            678,056
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                           936,308
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                               1,007,340
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                    2,423,552
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               302,500
<PREFERRED>                                         169,700
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                              3,705,215
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   99,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                            0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                       218,157
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                             1,500
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                         147,372
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     83,110
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                    3,394,860
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                    10,544,966
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                         3,748,991
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                261,970
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                        2,895,783
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                        3,157,011
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                             591,980
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                   29,793
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                      621,031
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            299,218
<NET-INCOME>                                        321,813
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          39,379
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                       282,434
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                            221,701
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                           315,862
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                              883,334
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          2.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0.00
Exhibit 99.1


                   Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
           As Adopted to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with Form 10-QSB of Digital Data Networks, Inc. (the "Company")
for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Donald B. Scott, Jr., Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, 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, as
                  amended, and
         2)       the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.


                                  By:    /s/   Donald B. Scott, Jr.
                                  ------------------------------
                                  Donald B. Scott, Jr.
                                  President
                                  August 9, 2002





<PAGE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7718

LARRY BARRBENTON SIMMONS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SEWALL SMITH, Warden; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-1681-JFM) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 10, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Barrbenton Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Larry Barrbenton Simmons seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Simmons v. Smith , No. CA98-1681-JFM (D. Md. Nov. 10, 1998). 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
#### Cleveland FRAZIER, Appellant, v. The CITY OF MIAMI, a municipal corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 72-939.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 6, 1973.

Rehearing Denied April 4, 1973.

Martin M. Dernis, Miami, for appellant.

Alan H. Rothstein, City Atty., and Montague Rosenberg, Asst. City Atty., for ap-pellees.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See City of Miami v. Albro, Fla.App.1960, 120 So.2d 23.
#### Prince STEVENSON, Petitioner, v. MILLER-WOHL COMPANY, American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, and the Florida Industrial Commission, an Administrative Agency, Respondents.

No. 36846.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 8, 1968.

Rehearing Denied June 5, 1968.

Joseph V. Niemoeller, of Knight, Underwood, Peters, Hoeveler & Pickle, Miami, for petitioner.

G. W. O’Grady, of Blackwell, Walker & Gray, Miami, Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, and J. Franklin Garner, Lakeland, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date September 19, 1967.

We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed w.ith pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 32 F.S.A.

Our consideration of the petition, the record and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law. The petition is therefore denied. The petition for allowance of attorneys’ fees is also denied.

CALDWELL, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
#### Anthony J. LOCASCIO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-918.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 10, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed December 23, 2015.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D12-1729

Lower Tribunal No. 05-26333

________________



### Ronald Salazar

, Appellant,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ellen Sue

Venzer

, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Manuel Alvarez, Assistant Public

Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jeffrey R. Geldens

, Assistant

Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SALTER, EMAS and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.Ronald Salazar appeals his conviction and sentence for first-degree murder

and sexual battery of a child under twelve. We hold the trial court did not err in

denying the motion to suppress statements made by Salazar. The question before

the trial court was whether Salazar was “in custody” for Miranda purposes at the

time the statements were made. The proper inquiry is whether, under the totality

of the circumstances, “a reasonable person placed in the same position would

believe that his or her freedom of action was curtailed to a degree associated with

actual arrest.” Ramirez v. State

, 739 So. 2d 568, 573 (Fla. 1999). Following an

evidentiary hearing, the trial court concluded that Salazar was not in custody or

undergoing custodial interrogation at the time he made the relevant statements.

We find no error in this determination. See Lorenzo v. State

, 948 So. 2d 1012

(Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Cotton v. State

, 901 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Ramsey

v. State

, 731 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Wright v. State

, 161 So. 3d 442 (Fla.

5th DCA 2014).

We find no merit to the other point raised on appeal by Salazar.

Accordingly, we affirm Salazar’s conviction and sentence.

Affirmed.

2
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases 2010 Census
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB10-CR.39 **Contact:**  Jennifer Smits
Public Information Office
(301) 763-3030 (phone)
(301) 763-3762 (fax)
(301) 457-1037 (TDD)PIO@census.gov
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2010 Media Advisory — 2010 Census Road Tour Comes to Kansas State University Traveling for a total of 1,547 days and more than 150,000 miles across the country, 13 road tour vehicles will provide the public with an educational, engaging and interactive experience that brings the 2010 Census to life. At each event across the country, attendees will have the opportunity to learn about the 2010 Census and understand the benefits a complete count can bring to communities everywhere; view a sample 2010 Census form and learn how the collected information is used; and contribute stories and photos to the Portrait of America project to explain why “I count!” and view messages from other road tour participants.
    
 For more information about the 2010 Census and the Road Tour, please visit 2010census.gov and follow us on Twitter (@2010Portrait), Facebook, MySpace, Flickr and YouTube (/uscensusbureau).
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n D i ane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 26, 2011

y0919 

# Order

September 26, 2011

142974

WOODCARE X, INC. d/b/a CARETEL INNS OF LINDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 142974 COA: 294824 Genesee CC: 2008-000132-MK DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH, Defendant-Appellee,

and

JANET OLSEWSKI, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 25, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.