alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.10





 Exhibit 10.10 

ROYALTY SHARING AGREEMENT 

This Royalty Sharing Agreement (this “Agreement”) is made and entered into as of January 1, 2020 by and between
BioAtla, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“BioAtla”), and BioAtla Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Holdings”). 

WHEREAS, BioAtla and Fl Oncology Inc., a Delaware corporation (“F I”), entered into that certain Amended and Restated Exclusive
License Agreement on November 22, 2019 (the “Exclusive License Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, BioAtla now wishes to
share with Holdings one-half of any royalties it receives from F 1 pursuant to the Exclusive License Agreement. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound, the parties hereby agree as follows: 
  

	 	1.	 BioAtla hereby grants to Holdings a right to receive fifty, percent (50%) of any royalties received by BioAtla
pursuant to the Exclusive License Agreement. BioAtla covenants and agrees to pay Holdings fifty percent (50%) of any royalties received pursuant to the Exclusive License Agreement, within ten (10) days of receipt, by wire transfer in
immediately available funds to a bank and account designated by Holdings. 


  

	 	2.	 This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, USA,
excluding its conflicts of laws principles. This Agreement is both a final expression of the parties’ agreement and complete and exclusive statement with respect to all of its terms. This Agreement supersedes all prior and contemporaneous
agreements and communications, whether oral, written or otherwise, concerning any and all matters contained herein, between BioAtla and Holdings. This Agreement may be amended, or any term hereof modified, only by a written instrument duly executed
by authorized representatives of both parties hereto. 


  

	 	3.	 Except as expressly provided herein neither this Agreement nor any rights or obligations hereunder or under the
Exclusive License Agreement may be assigned or otherwise transferred by either party without prior written consent of the other party. 


  

	 	4.	 This Agreement be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original document, and all of
which, together with this writing, shall be deemed one instrument. This Agreement may be executed by facsimile or PDF signatures, which signatures shall have the same force and effect as original signatures. 



[Signature Page Follows] 












 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed on the date
first mentioned above. 
  

			
	BIOATLA, LLC
		
	By:	 	/s/ Monica Sullivan
	Name:	 	Monica Sullivan
	Title:	 	VP Contracts


  

			
	BIOATLA HOLDINGS, LLC
		
	By:	 	/s/ Carolyn Short
	Name:	 	Carolyn Short
	Title:	 	Member


 [Signature Page to Royalty Sharing Agreement]
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George VAN DEUSEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 83CA0013.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

Sept. 8, 1983.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 20, 1983.

Certiorari Denied Feb. 6, 1984.

Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., John Milton Hutchins, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, Claire Levy, Deputy State- Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

METZGER, Judge.

Defendant’s deferred sentence was revoked after a contested hearing at which the trial court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant had violated a condition of his deferred sentence which provided that defendant not commit any criminal offenses. Thereafter, the court imposed a sentence of two years plus one year of parole, which defendant has served. Nevertheless, defendant contends that, since only criminal offenses were alleged as the basis for the motion for revocation, the trial court should have applied a test of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” We agree.

In *People v. Anzures,*670 P.2d 1258, (Colo.App.1983) we held:

> “Section 16-7-403(2), C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8) gives a defendant in a de*403ferred sentencing matter the same procedural safeguards contained in revocation of probation hearings. Section 16 — 11— 206, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8); *see also*Crim P. 32(g)_ Further, § 16-11-206 provides that the burden on the prosecution shall be by a preponderance of the evidence ‘except that the commission of a criminal offense must be established beyond a reasonable doubt unless the probationer has been convicted thereof in a criminal proceeding.’ ”

Here, no proceedings on the defendant’s alleged further criminal conduct had occurred. Therefore, the court should have applied the reasonable doubt standard in the revocation hearing. *Adair v. People,*651 P.2d 389 (Colo.1982), relied on by the trial court, is not applicable to the facts here, since the acts resulting in deferred sentence revocation there did not constitute criminal offenses.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions that the trial court vacate defendant’s conviction.

PIERCE and BERMAN, JJ., concur.
#### Mary STRAIN and James Alton Strain v. MITCHELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Rowley Company, Inc., ABC Insurance Co., and XYZ Insurance Co.

No. 88-C-3141.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 17, 1989.

In re Mitchell Manufacturing Co.;—Defendants); applying for writ pf certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA 8973; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “B”, No. 85-16435.

Denied.

CALOGERO and MARCUS, JJ., would grant the writ.
|Subsidiaries of
Elantec Semiconductor, Inc.
|-------------------------------------------

|Name of Corporation:     |  | Elantec Semiconductor Japan Limited        
|------------------------ |  | -------------------------------------------
|Registered Office:       |  | Yokohama, Japan                            
|Percentage of Ownership: |  | 100%                                       
|                        
|Name of Corporation:     |  | Elantec Semiconductor International Limited
|Registered Office:       |  | Hamilton, Bermuda                          
|Percentage of Ownership: |  | 100%                                       
|                        
|Name of Corporation:     |  | Elantec Semiconductor U.K. Limited         
|Registered Office:       |  | Berkshire, England                         
|Percentage of Ownership: |  | 100%                                       
|                        
|Name of Corporation:     |  | Elantec Semiconductor International Limited
|Registered Office:       |  | Bridgetown, Barbados                       
|Percentage of Ownership: |  | 100%
***CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED***

***PURSUANT      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002***

|   | (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/                Gui Hua Lan                                                                                                 |   |   |   |
| Name:                Gui Hua LanTitle:                Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board                        |   |   |   |
|                                                                                                                           |   |   |   |
| /s/ Qiong                Hua Gao                                                                                          |   |   |   |
| Name: Qiong                Hua GaoTitle:                 Chief Financial Officer August                16, 2007 |   |   |   |

----
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 Income Opportunity Realty Investors, Inc. (the Company), on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned
Daniel J. Moos, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company (Principal Executive Officer) and Gene S. Bertcher, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) of the Company, do hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|               |  |                                                                                                                   
|-------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|March 31, 2010 |  | /s/    DANIEL J.
MOOS                                                                                             
|               |  | Daniel J. Moos President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer)                                
|               | 
|March 31, 2010 |  | /s/    GENE S.
BERTCHER                                                                                           
|               |  | Gene S. Bertcher Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSFORATIO N FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N ^

I n th e Matte r

of: AI REVA C EMS , INC
. FA A CAS E NO. : 2007CE03002 6 

# C ^ ff^ '

HEARIN GDAT E REQUES T ^ •j-' ^ i f •

Th e undersigne dcounse l for th e Responden t

i s plannin g t o b e o n an out-of-stat e vacatio n for

afamil y reunio n fromJun e 9 , 201 0 throug hJun e 18 , 201 0 an dtherefor e request s tha t

th e hearin g not

b e schedule dunti l Jun e 28 , 201 0 at th e earliest
.
Respectfull y submitted , COOLIN G& HERDER S

ise y J O M^ffir i Street , Suit e 240 0 'KansasCity , M O 6410 5 Telephone : (816)474-077 7 Facsimile : (816)472-079 0 iramsev(a),coolinglaw.co m ATTORNEY S FO RRESPONDEN T AI REVA C EMS , INC
.

FA A CAS ENO. : 2007CE03002 6CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E



# 5 I hereb y certif

y tha t o n th e j

_day o f

May 2010, 1 forwarde dth e origina l an don e (1 ) cop y o f

th e foregoin g Hearin g Dat e Reques t vi aUnite dState s Mail , Certified , Retur n Receip t Requeste dto : Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Wilbu r Wrigh t Building , Suit e 2W100 0 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Washington , D.C
. 2059 1 Additionall y on e (1 ) cop y o f th e foregoin g Answe r

t o Complain t

was forwarde d vi aUnite dState s mail , certified , retur n receip t requeste dto : Mar k G
. Camach o Senio r Enforcemen t

Attorne y Federa l Aviatio n AdraiiiistEatio a Offic e o f Regiona l Counse l 90 1 Locust , Roo m506

- Kansa s City , M O 64106-264 1

F:\Cases\FA A ENFORCEMEN T ACTIONSVAJ REVAC\Pleadings\2007CE030026\Hearin g Dat e Request.May4.2010.do c

FA A CAS E NO. : 2007CE03002 6
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2238

TANYITAKU CLOVIS NWANNA, a/k/a Clovis Tanyi Taku; MARCELENE 

FORTON EBANGHA,

Petitioners,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: May 4, 2017 Decided: June 14, 2017

Before TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Payne, PAYNE & ASSOCIATES, Washington, D.C., for Petitioners. Chad A. 

Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Kohsei Ugumori, Senior Litigation Counsel, 

Jesse Lloyd Busen, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 

OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tanyitaku Clovis Nwanna and Marcelene Forton Ebangha, natives and citizens of 

Cameroon, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying 

their motion to reopen. For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss in part and deny in part 

the petition for review.

Before this court, the Petitioners seek to challenge the immigration judge’s adverse 

credibility determination and the agency’s underlying denial of their applications for relief. 

Only the Board’s denial of the Petitioners’ motion to reopen is properly before us, however, 

as the Petitioners failed to timely petition this court for review of the Board’s decision of 

May 20, 2016. The Petitioners had 30 days from the date of this initial decision to timely 

file a petition for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2012). This time period is 

“jurisdictional in nature and must be construed with strict fidelity to [its] terms.” Stone v. 

INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995). The filing of a motion to reopen with the Board does not 

toll the 30-day period for seeking review of an underlying decision. Id. at 394. 

Accordingly, we now limit our review to the propriety of the Board’s denial of the 

Petitioners’ motion to reopen, and we dismiss the petition for review to the extent the 

Petitioners challenge the earlier decision.

Turning to the Board’s denial of the Petitioners’ motion to reopen, we have 

reviewed the Petitioners’ claims in conjunction with the administrative record and conclude 

that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) 

(2016); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we deny the 

petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Nwanna (B.I.A. 
3

Sept. 27, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART

AND DENIED IN PART
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.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### U.S. Customs and Border Protection

# AGENCY:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

# ACTION:

Notice of accreditation and approval of Thionville Surveying Company, Inc., as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, Thionville Surveying Company, Inc., 5440 Pepsi St, Harahan, LA 70123, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquires regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to                         *cbp.labhq@dhs.gov.*                         Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories.                         *http://cbp.gov/​linkhandler/​cgov/​trade/​automated/​labs_​scientific_​svcs/​commercial_​gaugers/​gaulist.ctt/​gaulist.pdf*

# DATES:

The accreditation and approval of Thionville Surveying Company, Inc., as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on June 22, 2011. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for June 2014.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jonathan McGrath, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060.

Dated: February 28, 2012.

 Ira S. Reese,

Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.

[FR Doc. 2012-5351 Filed 3-5-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
Exhibit 32.2



|               |  |                                                                                                                       
|-------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|EXHIBIT 32.2  |  | CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the
Form 10-Q) for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 of Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc. (the Issuer).

The
undersigned hereby certifies that the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.



|                  |  | 
|----------------- |  | 
|Date: May 6, 2011

By:       /s/ THOMAS W.
CASEY

Name:  Thomas W.
Casey

Title:    Office of the Chief Executive Officer (performing the functions of principal executive officer) and

Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer)
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2418 

To suspend temporarily the duty on acrylic or modacrylic synthetic filament 

tow. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mrs. HAGAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on acrylic or modacrylic 

synthetic filament tow. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ACRYLIC OR MODACRYLIC SYNTHETIC FILA4 MENT TOW. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2418 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Acrylic filament tow containing 85 percent or more 

by weight of acrylonitrile 

units and 2 percent or more 

but not over 3 percent of 

water, raw white (undyed), 

crimped, with an average filament decitex of 4.1 (plus or 

minus 10 percent) and an aggregate filament measure in 

the tow bundle from 660,000 

to 1,200,000 decitex, with a 

length greater than two meters (provided for in subheading 5501.30.00) ............. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
#### Marcelino CAMACHO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-0798.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 20, 1988.

Marcelino Camacho, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See State v. Casseus,*513 So.2d 1045 (Fla.1987); *State v. Ginebra,*511 So.2d 960 (Fla.1987).

DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and STONE, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, John H. Heyman, do hereby certify in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, the foregoing Annual Report of Radiant Systems, Inc. (the Company):



| | (1) | fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78 m or 78o(d), and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                                        
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------
|Dated: March 6, 2009 |  | /s/ JOHN H. HEYMAN                     
|                     |  | John H. Heyman, Chief Executive Officer

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Mark E. Haidet, do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge,
the foregoing Annual Report of Radiant Systems, Inc. (the Company):



| | (1) | fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78 m or 78o(d), and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                                        
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------
|Dated: March 6, 2009 |  | /s/ MARK E. HAIDET                     
|                     |  | Mark E. Haidet, Chief Financial Officer
#### Randolph J. WAITS v. Phyllis Niklaus WAITS.

No. 88-CC-0078.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 5, 1988.

In re Waits, Phyllis Niklaus; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, supervisory and/or remedial writs; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CW-8816; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “L”, No. 83-8370.

Not considered; not timely filed.