alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex_384352.htm


Exhibit 4.18


 


 





 


 


November 3, 2020


 


Elizabeth Williams


2 Bloor St. W, 7th Floor


Toronto, ON    M4W 3E2


 


 


Dear Elizabeth,


 


We are asking you to agree to certain changes to the written employment agreement dated December 12, 2016 as amended September 21, 2017 (your "Employment Agreement") a copy of which is enclosed with this amendment letter).


 


We have set out the changes that will be made to the terms of your Employment Agreement, below. Please sign and return this document to indicate your acceptance of these changes. Once you have accepted the changes, this document will constitute an official amendment to the terms of your Employment Agreement.


 


	 	
			1.

				
			Change to your Base Salary - Section 3.1(a) will be modified to reflect your new Base Salary of Cdn $260,000 which is effective as of April 1, 2020.

			
	 	 	 
	 	 	Addition of 3.1(d) – Retirement Contribution – Effective April 1, 2020 the Company will annually deposit $26,000 to an RRSP account of the Executive’s choosing by February 28th of the following year (i.e. February 28, 2021)
	 	 	 
	 	2.	Changes to your Bonus Structure – Section 3.3 will be modified to reflect your new bonus rate of 40 percent effective April 1, 2020.
	 	 	 
	 	3.	Changes to your Severance Payment – Section 5.3 (a) (i) will be replaced as follows:
	 	 	 
	 	 	an amount equal to one quarter of the current Annual Base Salary during the first year plus one quarter of the current Annual Base Salary during the second year, plus one quarter of the current Annual Base Salary during the third year and plus one quarter of the Annual Base Salary during the fourth or any additional year the Executive is employed by the Company to a maximum of one times the Executive’s current Annual Base Salary; and
	 	 	 
	 	Finally, all other terms and conditions of your Employment Agreement shall remain the same.



 


Thank you for taking the time to carefully consider this letter. Please return a signed copy at your earliest convenience. In the meantime, if you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.


 


Yours Sincerely,


Medicenna Therapeutics


 


Signed: /s/ Fahar Merchant                        


 


 





 










 








 





 


 


I hereby agree to amend the terms and conditions of my Employment Agreement, as described above. All remaining terms and conditions of my employment will remain in effect, unchanged by this consent.


 


	
			Signed: /s/ Elizabeth Williams                   


			             Elizabeth Williams

				
			Date:    December 11, 2020
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEITH K. LY,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,

Respondents. No. 15

- 71833

DE A No. 4410

- 09

- P

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Drug Enforcement Agency

Submitted April 11, 2017 **

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Keith K. Ly, M.D., seeks review of the decision by the Administrator of the

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) s uspe nd ing Ly’s DEA Certificate

of Registration and denying his application for renewal. We have jurisdiction

under 21 U.S.C. § 877. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual

findings. 21 U.S.C. § 877

. We may set aside the Administrator’ s deci sion only if

* 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

APR 24 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 71833

it was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or not in accordance with the

law.” Fry v. Drug Enforcement Agency , 353 F.3d 1041, 1043 (9th Cir. 2003). W e

deny Dr. Ly ’ s petition.

The DEA Administrator did not abuse her discretion by denying Dr. Ly’s

motion to reopen because Dr. Ly waived the opportunity for a hearing on his

registration status

. See 21 C.F.R. § 1301.43; see also Pincay v

. Andrews

, 389 F.3d

853, 855

- 56 (9th Cir. 2004) (ignorance of the rules or mistakes construing the rules

do not usually constitute excusable neglect)

.

The Administrator did not abuse her discretion by suspending Dr. Ly’s

Certificates of Registration and d enying any renewal applications because the

A dmi nistrator properly considered the statutory factors to determine whether

registration was inconsistent with the public interest. See 21 U.S.C. § 823(f); Fry

,

353 F.3d at 1043 (agency decision is not arbitrary and capricious if “based on a

consideration of the relevant factors and there is no clear error of judgment”

(citation omitted)). Contrary to Dr. Ly’s contention s , the Administrator’s

imposition of this sanction did not violate Dr. Ly’s due process rights or implicate

the Double Jeopardy Clause

. See Hudson v

. United States

, 522 U.S. 93, 98

- 99

(1997) (Double Jeopardy clause only prohibits the imposition of multiple criminal3 15

- 71833

punishments for the same offense) ; Pinnacle Armor, Inc. v. United States , 648 F.3d

708, 716 (9th Cir. 2011) ( discussing elements of a procedural due process claim )

.

We reject as unsupported by the record Dr. Ly’s contention that the

Administrator was biased against him

.

DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6675

THERON JOHNNY MAXTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS; STATE BOARD

OF NURSING; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-889-3-6BC)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 9, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theron Johnny Maxton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate

judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Maxton v. State

Board of Medical Examiners, No. CA-96-889-3-6BC (D.S.C. Apr. 16,

1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1666 ROSALIE T. JOHNSON, Evangelist, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OLSTEN KIMBERLY QUALITYCARE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-96-3250-2-18AJ) Submitted: November 12, 1997 Decided: January 9, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rosalie T. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Kathryn Thomas, GIGNILLIAT, SAVITZ & BETTIS, Columbia, South Carolina; Gregory Scott Richters, IRVIN, STANFORD & KESSLER, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee. We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Johnson v. Olsten Kimberly Qualitycare , No. CA-96-3250-2-18AJ (D.S.C. May 8, 1997). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edwin Rodriguez, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence J. Tonetti, J.), rendered April 26, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment of from 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

At the close of the People’s case, the trial was adjourned for four days. Defendant failed to appear for trial on the adjourned date, and remained absent throughout the remainder of the trial. The trial court’s continuation of the trial in defendant’s absence was not an abuse of discretion. The court and the People made reasonable and unsuccessful efforts to determine defendant’s whereabouts by checking at his home, and the city’s morgue, hospitals and jails. Thus, the court properly concluded that defendant had voluntarily absented himself and, thereby, forfeited his right to be present at trial. *(People v Sanchez,*65 NY2d 436; *People v Jones,*163 AD2d 203, *lv denied*76 NY2d 987.) Under these circumstances, it is irrelevant that the court did not give defendant *Parker*warnings, pursuant to *People v Parker*(57 NY2d 136; *People v Sanchez, supra,*at 443). Furthermore, the court committed no abuse of discretion in summarily denying defendant’s motion, pursuant to CPL 330.30 (1), to set aside the verdict on the ground that he had been tried *in absentia.*Defendant’s mother’s affidavit, in support of the motion, stated that defendant was ill on the evening before the adjourned date and that he was hospitalized three days later under the name of one Eduardo Rivera. These factual allegations were insufficient to require a hearing because they did not account for defendant’s absence on the adjourned date and the subsequent dates *(People v Jones, supra).*

Defendant’s challenge to the court’s marshaling of the *406evidence, pursuant to CPL 300.10 (2), was not preserved for review. (CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Sanchez,*136 AD2d 751, *lv denied 75*NY2d 817.) Were we to consider it, we would find that the court’s charge was sufficiently balanced and would note that CPL 300.10 (2) neither requires the court to marshal the evidence nor explain all the contentions of the parties or inconsistencies alleged *(People v Saunders,*64 NY2d 665). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
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 Quarterly Report of American Bar Association
Members/State Street Collective Trust (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James S. Phalen, as Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.


                                                   /s/ James S. Phalen
                                                  ----------------------
                                                  James S. Phalen
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
                                                  November 14, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

  <ARTICLE>        5
  <MULTIPLIER>     1,000
         
  <S>                               <C>
  <PERIOD-TYPE>                     YEAR
  <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1997
  <PERIOD-START>                    JAN-01-1997
  <PERIOD-END>                      DEC-31-1997
  <CASH>                            0
  <SECURITIES>                      0
  <RECEIVABLES>                     0
  <ALLOWANCES>                      0
  <INVENTORY>                       0
  <CURRENT-ASSETS>                  0
  <PP&E>                            0
  <DEPRECIATION>                    0
  <TOTAL-ASSETS>                    0
  <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             0
  <BONDS>                           0
  <COMMON>                          0
  <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0
  <PREFERRED>                       0
  <OTHER-SE>                        0
  <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      0
  <SALES>                           0
  <TOTAL-REVENUES>                  0
  <CGS>                             0
  <TOTAL-COSTS>                     0
  <OTHER-EXPENSES>                  0
  <LOSS-PROVISION>                  0
  <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                0
  <INCOME-PRETAX>                   0
  <INCOME-TAX>                      0
  <INCOME-CONTINUING>               0
  <DISCONTINUED>                    0
  <EXTRAORDINARY>                   0
  <CHANGES>                         0
  <NET-INCOME>                      0
  <EPS-PRIMARY>                     0
  <EPS-DILUTED>                     0
          
  
</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.3

 

Certification of the President

 

Pursuant to 18 US.C. Section, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

 

I, Bowen S. Diehl, President of Capital Southwest Corporation, certify that, to my knowledge:

 

|  | 1. |  | The Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Capital Southwest Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“accompanied 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 accompanied report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of Capital Southwest Corporation. |
|--|----|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

|                          |   |                                                  |
|-------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:  December 12, 2016 | By:    | /s/ Bowen S. Diehl                                    |
|                          |   | Bowen S. Diehl

President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         189,237 
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,604,568
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (63,448)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,863,326
<PP&E>                                      65,431,046
<DEPRECIATION>                              (4,871,614)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              67,610,403
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       24,510,793
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        277
<COMMON>                                       128,709
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,127,790
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                67,610,403
<SALES>                                      5,975,818
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,299,514
<CGS>                                        2,803,130
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,585,948
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,185,897
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                527,669
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   527,669
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03
        

</TABLE>
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 128 

To clarify the primary functions and duties of the Office of Advocacy of 

the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2019 

Mr. COMER (for himself and Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Small Business 

A BILL 

To clarify the primary functions and duties of the Office 

of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Business Advo5 cacy Improvements Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO PRIMARY FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES 

7 OF THE OFFICE OF ADVOCACY OF THE SMALL 

8 BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION. 

9 (a) PRIMARY FUNCTIONS.—Section 202 of Public 

10 Law 94–305 (15 U.S.C. 634b) is amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 128 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘and the 

2 international economy’’ after ‘‘economy’’; 

3 (2) in paragraph (9), by striking ‘‘complete’’ 

4 and inserting ‘‘compete’’; and 

5 (3) in paragraph (12), by striking ‘‘serviced-dis6 abled’’ and inserting ‘‘service-disabled’’. 

7 (b) DUTIES.—Section 203(a) of Public Law 94–305 

8 (15 U.S.C. 634c) is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

10 end; 

11 (2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at 

12 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

13 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

14 ‘‘(7) represent the views and interests of small 

15 businesses before foreign governments and inter16 national entities for the purpose of contributing to 

17 regulatory and trade initiatives which may affect 

18 small businesses.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION



In connection with the Quarterly Report of PortalPlayer, Inc., on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Gary Johnson, President and Chief Executive Officer, and I, Svend-Olav Carlsen, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my knowledge:



(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 PortalPlayer, Inc.



Dated: May 13, 2005



|                                      |  |                        
|------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ GARY JOHNSON                      |  | /s/ SVEND-OLAV CARLSEN 
|Gary Johnson                          |  | Svend-Olav Carlsen     
|President and Chief Executive Officer |  | Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          36,630
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  417,562
<ALLOWANCES>                                    63,520
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               471,762
<PP&E>                                       2,286,295
<DEPRECIATION>                                 708,915
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,314,516
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          426,447
<BONDS>                                        661,089
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,110
<OTHER-SE>                                     992,545
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,314,516
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,755,696
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,501,646
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                90,381
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                22,502
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              45,241
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 24,737
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,860
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,161
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,161
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16


</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 3, 2019

No. 04-19-00191-CV

Alexander Webster PIERCE III,

Appellant

v.

Julia Tomlin PIERCE,

Appellee

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-CI-10620

Honorable Solomon Casseb, III, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On March 28, 2019, the Bexar County District Clerk filed a notification of late record 

indicating Appellant has not yet paid for the record but is mailing the payment. The district clerk 

requested additional time to prepare the clerk’s record until April 8, 2019. 

On April 1, 2019, the Bexar County District Clerk filed the record. The motion is 

GRANTED. The clerk’s record is deemed timely filed.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 3rd day of April, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
|  | • | The Company’s management is responsible for assessing the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. |
|--|---------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | • | The Company’s management has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.  In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of                Regulation AB. |
|--|---------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | • | Based on such assessment, the Company has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. |
|--|---------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----