alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
tcon_Ex_1027



		

			Exhibit 10.27

		





		
			 
		

		
			AMENDMENT #2
		

		
			Cooperative Research and Development Agreement #02663
		

		
			“Clinical Development of Tracon Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s TRC105, an anti-CD105 antibody, as an Anti-Cancer Agent”
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			The purpose of this amendment is to change certain terms of the above-reference Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA). These changes are reflected below, and except for these changes, all other provisions of the original CRADA remain in full force and effect. Two originals of this amendment are provided for execution; one is to remain with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the other with the Collaborator.
		

		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 1.
			

			
	
			
			Upon final signature, the term of the Agreement is extended for three (3) years from December 22, 2015 to December 22, 2018.




		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:
		

			
					
						For the National Cancer Institute: 

					
						 

					
						By:  /s/ James H. Doroshow, M.D.

					
						 

					
						Name: James H. Doroshow, M.D.

					
						Title: Deputy Director, NCI

					
						 

					
						For the Collaborator:

					
						 

					
						By:  /s/ Charles Theuer, M.D., Ph.D.

					
						 

					
						Name: Charles Theuer, M.D., Ph.D.

					
						Title: Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            5 
<LEGEND>

     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
financial   statements   of  Global   Telecommunication   Solutions,   Inc.  and
subsidiaries  as of  December  31,  1996 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                       JAN-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                         DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                               1,352,322
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        2,849,119
<ALLOWANCES>                                         399,000
<INVENTORY>                                          202,129
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     1,388,159
<PP&E>                                               2,557,152
<DEPRECIATION>                                       608,235
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       25,819,365
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                11,023,114
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             18,376
<OTHER-SE>                                           10,369,913
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         25,819,365
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     12,121,365
<CGS>                                                8,066,315
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        10,666,932
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   (395,674)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (6,919,722)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (6,920,222)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (6,920,222)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (4.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (4.14)
        

<PAGE>
                                                                   

</TABLE>
#### Allen K. BREHM, Petitioner, v. Guy T. HELVERING, Commissioner, Respondent. Siegfried GABEL and Paula A. Gabel, Petitioners, v. Guy T. HELVERING, Commissioner, Respondent. Ferdinand Anthony GRIEN, Petitioner, v. Guy T. HELVERING, Commissioner, Respondent. Walter FREDERICHS, Petitioner, v. Guy T. HELVERING, Commissioner, Respondent. Frederick H. HORNBY, Petitioner, v. Guy T. HELVERING, Commissioner, Respondent. Woolsey A. SHEPARD, Petitioner, v. Guy T. HELVERING, Commissioner, Respondent.

Nos. 112-117.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 15, 1940.

Winthrop G. Brown and Horace N. Taylor, both of New York City (Winthrop G. Brown, Joseph Walker, Horace N. Taylor, and J. C. Wilberding, Jr., all of New York City, on the brief), for petitioners.

Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key and Helen R. Carloss, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen. for respondent.

Before L. HAND, CHASE and PATTERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Orders affirmed upon the authority of André DeCoppet v. Helvering, 2 Cir., 108 F.2d 787.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 623 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 623

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to ensure the continued 
    access of Medicare beneficiaries to diagnostic imaging services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 20, 2013

Mr. Cardin (for himself and Mr. Vitter) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to ensure the continued 
    access of Medicare beneficiaries to diagnostic imaging services.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Diagnostic Imaging Services Access 
Protection Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. MEDICARE PAYMENT FOR IMAGING SERVICES.

    Section 1848(b)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
4(b)(4)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(E) Limitation on application of multiple 
                procedure payment reduction.--The Secretary may not 
                apply a multiple procedure payment reduction policy to 
                the professional component of imaging services 
                furnished on or after 30 days after the date of the 
                enactment of this subparagraph, until the Secretary 
                publishes in the Federal Register the following:
                            ``(i) An analysis of the information used 
                        in the final rule to implement the physician 
                        fee schedule under this section in 2013 to 
                        determine what, if any, efficiencies exist 
                        within the professional component of imaging 
                        services when 2 or more studies are performed 
                        on the same patient on the same day.
                            ``(ii) Detailed information on--
                                    ``(I) which activities in the 
                                vignettes in such rule were assigned 
                                reduction percentages of 0, 25, 50, 75, 
                                and 100 percent;
                                    ``(II) how such percentage 
                                reductions for the pre-, intra-, and 
                                post-service work were determined and 
                                calculated; and
                                    ``(III) the clinical aspects that 
                                went into those decisions.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1



May 16, 2022



Via EDGAR



Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549



Re: Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Ladies and Gentlemen:



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Permianville
Royalty Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2022 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the Trustee of
the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its
knowledge:



(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 Trust.



The above certification is furnished solely pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.



|The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company,   |                                 
|-------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------
|N.A., Trustee for Permianville Royalty Trust |                                 
|                                             |                                 
|By:                                          | /s/ SARAH NEWELL                
|                                             | Sarah Newell                    
|                                             | Vice President and Trust Officer
`Exhibit 10.2


                              Schedule of Parties
                          to Indemnification Agreement

                    David W. Allen                  Horst Schroeder
                    Jonathan E. Baum                Timothy Webster
                    Mark C. Demetree                Richard Thompson
                    Robert J. Druten                Daniel Trott
                    Paul Geist                      Robert Niehaus
                    Walter N. George                George Shadid
                    James A. Heeter                 Stephanie Ruskey
                    John P. Kelly
                    Ronald C. Kesselman
                    Terence C. O'Brien
                    William R. Patterson
                    Tim M. Pollak
                    Robert Schuller
                    Raymond P. Silcock`
FILED
in the Office of the
Secretary of State of the
STATE OF NEVADA
JUL 01 1998
                          ALGORHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES CORP.
                          -----------------------------
                               Name of Corporation

No. C 9260-94 We the undersigned Andrew D. Smith and David Bawarsky of
                                 ---------------     --------------
                                   President            Secretary

Algorhythm Technologies Corporation do hereby certify
-----------------------------------
Name of Corporation

         That the board of Directors of said corporation at a meeting duly
convened, held on the 20th day of May 1998, adopted a resolution to amend the
original articles as follows:

         Article One is hereby amended to read as follows:

         FIRST: The name of the corporation is:
         -----
                  QuikBIZ Internet Group, Inc.

         The number of shares of the corporation outstanding and entitled to
vote on an amendment to the Articles of Incorporation is 12,465,240 that the
said change(s) and amendment have been consented to and approved by a majority
vote of the stockholders holding a majority of each class stock outstanding and
entitled to vote thereon.

                                 /s/Andrew Smith
                                 --------------
                                    President


                                 /s/David Bawarsky
                                 ----------------
                                    Secretary

State of Florida
                           :ss
County of Broward

         On May 20, 1998, personally appeared before me, a Notary Public, Andrew
D. Smith, as President and David Bawarsky, as Secretary on behalf of Algorhythm
Technologies Corporation, a Nevada corporation, who acknowledged that they
executed the above instrument.

                                          /s/Sonnie R. Jackson 5/27/98
                                          ---------------------------
                                          Signature of Notary

                                          Sonnie R. Jackson
                                          My Commission# 00857134
                                          Expires June 19, 2001
                                          Board of Notary Public Underwriters
### Update to AgInfomatics Meeting Minutes from January 22, 2015 Meeting

The link s provided below take you to each report on the Value of Neonicotinoids completed by the study sponsors and made avai lable to the US EPA

.

The Value of Neonicotinoids in North American Agriculture: An Economic Assessment of the Benefits of Nitroguanidine Neonicotinoid Insecticides in the United States and Canada

http://growingmatters.org/studies/economic /study/

The Value of Neonicotinoids in North American Agriculture: Executive Summary

http://growingmatters.org/studies/ag

- executive/study/

The Value of Neonicotinoids in North American Agriculture: A Meta

- Analysis Approach to Estimating the Yield Effects of Neonicotinoids

http://growingmatters.org/studies/yield/

The Value of Neonicotinoids in Turf and Ornamentals : Executive Summary

http://growingmatters.org/studies/toexecutive/

The Value of Neonicotinoids in Turf and Ornamentals : The Value of Neoicotinoids in Turf
and Ornamental Professionals

http://growingmatters.org/studies/professional/

The Value of Neonicotinoids in Turf and Ornamentals : A Case Study of Neonicotinoids Use for Controlling Emerald Ash Borer

– The Naperville, Illinois Experience

http://growingmatters.org/studies/eab/

The Value of Neonicotinoids in Turf and Ornamentals : A Case Study of Neonicotinoids Use for Controlling Chinch Bug in Florida, St. Augustine grass

http://growingmatters.org/studies/turf/

The Value of Neonicotinoids in Turf and Ornamentals : A Case Study of Neonicotinoids Use
for Contr olling Silverleaf Whitefly in Ornamentals

http://growingmatters.org/studies/whitefly/

The Value of Neonicotinoids in North American Agriculture : Estimated Impact of

Neonicotinoid Insecticides on P est Management Practices and Costs for U.S. Corn, Soybean, Wheat, Cotton and Sorghum Farmers

http://growingmatters.org/studies/estimating/The Value of Neonicotinoids in Turf and Ornamentals : Estimating the Economic Value of Neonicotinoid Insecticides on Flowers, Shrubs, Home Lawns and Trees in the Homescape

http://growingmatters.org/studies/homescape/

The Value of Neonicotinoids in N orth American Agriculture : Value of Insect Pest Management to U.S. and Canadian Corn, Soybean and Canola Farmers

http://growingmatters.org/studies/value/

The Value of Neonicotinoids in North American Agriculture : Methods and Assumptions for Estimating the Impact of Neonicotinoid Insecticides on Pest Management P ractices and Costs for U.S. Corn, Soybean, Wheat, Cotton and Sorghum Farmers

http://growingmatters.org/studies/methods/

The Value of Neonicotinoids in North American Agriculture : Case Study: Neonicotinoid
Use in Florida Citrus

http://growingmatters.org/studies/citrus/

The Va lue of Neonicotinoids in North American Agriculture : Case Study: Neonicotinoid
Use in Mid

- South Cotton

http://growingmatters.org/studies/cotton/

The Value of Neonicotinoids in North American Agricul ture : Case Study: A Summary of Grower and Agri

- Professional Perspectives From Regional Listening Sessions in the United
States and Canada

http://growingmatters.org/studies/listening/
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Dean, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), rendered on or about May 25, 1989, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to CPL 460.20, defendant has the right to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the Judge or Justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other Judge or Justice. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Ross and Rubin, JJ.
T h e H on or abl e Ja mes L. G r ah am, U n i t ed St at es D i s t r i ct J u dg e f or t h e Sou t h er n D i s t r i ct of O h i o, s i t t i n g by * d esi gnat i o n. NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0540n.06 No. 08-6464 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA, P laintif f-App ellee,
v. GLENN R. D EAN, Defendan t-Appellant. / ON AP P EA L F RO M THE U NI TED STA TES D ISTRIC T C OU RT F OR THE WE S TE RN D IS TR IC T O F K EN TU CKY

Before: SILER and CLAY, Circ uit Jud ges; and GRA HAM , District Judge. * P ER CURIAM . Defen dan t G len n De an ap peal s the d is tr ictcou rt ’s judgme nt s e ntenc ing

him to 180 months i mprisonment after Def endant pled guilty

to beinga felon in posse ssion of a fire arm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)( 1). The district c ourt based this sentence o n i t s findingthat De fe nd ant s ho uld

be c la ssi fi e d a s a

c are e r c ri min a l un de r the Ar me d Car e e r Cri min a l A c t, 1 8 U .S. C. § 924(e) (“A CCA”) and, thus, is subject to a 180 month mandator y minimum
. On appe al, Def endant argues that the district cour t erre d by findingthat two robberies he committed w ithin 30 minutes of
eac h other on June 12, 1997 count as sepa rate predic ate of

fense s for purpose s of the ACCA. The de termination of whe ther a course of conduc t is a single oc casion or multiple occ asions for pur poses o f the ACCA is a question of law that we re view de novo
. United States v. Murphy , 107 F.3d 1199, 1208 ( 6th Cir. 1997).De fe nd ant’ s argume nt t hat he wa s c omp e lle d b y

the tw o oth e r pe rp e tr ator s to p art ic ipate in the se c on d r ob be ry

on June 12 , 1 99 7– so that bo th r ob be ri e s sh ou ld b e c on sidered to g e the r t o
c on sti tut e a

sin g le c ours e of

c ri min a l c on du c t–i s n ot s up po rt e d b y the re c or d. B e c a

us e it i s undisput ed i n t h e ins tant case that Def endant’ s offe nses wer e committed “at differ ent times and p l a c e s an d

a g a i n s td i f

f e r e n tv i c t i m s , ” w e ar e b o un d b y United St ates v. Brady to find that they

wer e committed on occa sions differe nt from one a nother unde r the ACCA. 988 F.2d 664, 669 ( 6th Cir. 1993) ( en banc ). Ac cording ly , beca use De fenda

nt was prope rly classified a s a ca ree r off ender for purposes of the ACCA, we AF F IRMthe di s t ri ct court’s judgment subjectingDef endant to a 180 month mandatory

minimum sentenc e.
**Exhibit 32**

 

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officerand Principal Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as AdoptedPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, James P. Foran, certify pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report on Form10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016 of JPX Global, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of JPX Global, Inc.

 

Date: November 14, 2016

 

By:	*/s/ James P. Foran*	

James P. Foran

Chief Executive Officer

and Principal Financial Officer
**
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2020 (the“Report”) of Solar Senior Capital Ltd. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, MICHAEL S. GROSS, the Co-Chief Executive Officer ofthe Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. 

 
 
/S/ MICHAEL S. GROSS
**Name:** **Michael S. Gross****Date:** **May 7, 2020**
 
**
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8095]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3317]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 2

[Docket No. RM11-30-000; Order No. 756]


Technical Corrections to Commission Regulations

Issued February 8, 2012.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Final rule: correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This document adds sections that were inadvertently removed 
from the Final Rule that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
published in the Federal Register on February 1, 2012. The Final Rule 
revised a number of references in Commission regulations that had 
become outdated for various reasons or contain typographical errors. 
The changes contained in this amendment add or delete language in 
current Commission regulations by eliminating obsolete information and 
correcting clerical mistakes. The revisions are intended to be 
ministerial and/or informational in nature.

DATES:  Effective date: February 14, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Yu, Office of the General 
Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8482.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document corrects a document published 
in the Federal Register on February 1, 2012 (77 FR 4891), in which 
sections that were inadvertently removed.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 2

    Administrative practice and procedure, Electric power, Natural gas, 
Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Therefore, 18 CFR part 2 is amended by the following correcting 
amendments:

PART 2--GENERAL POLICY AND INTERPRETATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 601; 15 U.S.C. 717-717z, 3301-3432; 16 
U.S.C. 792-828c, 2601-2645; 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370h, 7101-7352.


Sec.  2.13  [Removed]

0
2. Remove the first paragraph (b) in Sec.  2.13 including the footnote.


Sec.  2.55  [Corrected]

0
3. In Sec.  2.55(a)(2)(iii), revise the phrase ``On and at the same 
time as'' to read ``On, or at the same time as,''.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-3317 Filed 2-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P