alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.7.1



 Exhibit 10.7.1 
  
 RENEWAL OF SUBLEASE 
  
 THIS RENEWAL OF SUBLEASE is made and entered into this 16th day of November, 2004, by and between Veterinary Technologies Corporation, hereinafter called Tenant; New River Pharmaceuticals, Inc., hereinafter called Subtenant; and Virginia Tech Foundation, Inc., hereinafter called
Landlord. The terms Tenant and Subtenant are intended to include the successors and assigns of the original parties and their heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns of the respective entities. 
  
 WHEREAS, on July 23, 2001, the Tenant and Subtenant entered into a Sublease Agreement in
writing of the following demised premises, situated in Montgomery County, Virginia, to wit: 
  
 Approximately 508 rentable square feet in Suite 1120 in Research Building II, 
 1861 Pratt Drive, Blacksburg,
Virginia. 
  
 WHEREAS, the Tenant and Subtenant desire to renew the original
sublease thereto, 
  
 THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 
  

	1.	The purpose of this modification is to renew the Sublease for the Demised Premises for a period of six months, commencing on December 21, 2004, and ending on June 19, 2005.


  

	2.	The monthly rental for the renewal term shall be Seven Hundred Thirteen and 32/100 Dollars ($713.32). 

  

	3.	The monthly furnishings and equipment rental for the renewal term shall be Five Hundred Ninety-Nine and 40/100 Dollars ($599.40). 

  
 All other terms and conditions of the sublease are in full force and effect. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Sublease Renewal is entered into by the parties hereto on the date
and year first set forth above: 
  

			
	 For Veterinary Technologies Corporation
	 	 
		
	 /s/ James W. Hiney
	 	11/17/04
	 James W. Hiney, CEO
	 	   (date)

		
	For New River Pharmaceuticals Inc.	 	 
		
	 /s/ Randal J. Kirk
	 	12/1/04
	 Randal J. Kirk, President & CEO
	 	   (date) 

		
	For Virginia Tech Foundation, Inc.	 	 
		
	 /s/ Raymond D. Smoot
	 	12/9/04
	 Raymond D. Smoot, Jr., COO & Sec.-Treas.
	 	   (date)
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32


      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
               PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Report of Voyager One, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the for the three months ended March 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
John Lichter, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Sebastien DuFort,
President and Acting Chief Financial 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; and

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


                               By /s/ John Lichter
                                  --------------------------------------------
                                  John Lichter, Chief Executive Officer
                                  Date: 5/22/06


                               By /s/ Sebastien DuFort
                                  --------------------------------------------
                                  Sebastien DuFort, President and Acting Chief
                                  Financial Officer
                                  Date: 5/22/06
# C_2008107EN.01002603.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/26

---

Action brought on 26 January 2008 — EREF v Commission

(Case T-40/08)

(2008/C 107/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Fouquet, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | The Decision C(2007) 4323 final of the European Commission of 25 September 2007 is declared null and void; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Decision C(2007) 4323 final of the European Commission of 25 September 2007 is declared null and void;

| — | the financial vehicle in question in its present shape and structure is declared unlawful state aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

the financial vehicle in question in its present shape and structure is declared unlawful state aid;

| — | the European Commission is ordered to pay all procedural costs, including the costs of the claimant. |
| --- | --- |

—

the European Commission is ordered to pay all procedural costs, including the costs of the claimant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In 2004 the applicant filed a complaint with the Commission claiming that different aspects of the financing of a new power plant under construction in Finland amounted to state aid that had not been notified. The state aid aspects of the complaint were registered by the Commission under case number CP 238/04 and in 2006 the Commission decided to split the file into two separate cases numbered NN 62/A/2006 and NN 62/B/2006.

In the present case, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 4323 final of 25 September 2007 concerning case NN 62/A/2006, notified to it on 14 November 2007, by which the Commission concluded that the export guarantee provided by the French export credit agency (‘COFACE’) granting a credit for the financing of the new power plant unit ‘Olkiluoto 3’ purchased by the Finnish electricity generation company Teollisuuden Voima Oy (‘TVO’) did not constitute illegal state aid and thus, decided to close the investigation.

The applicant claims that the export guarantee or credit insurance of EUR 570 000 provided by COFACE to TVO constitutes illegal intercommunity aid due to its financial impact on the overall financing package of the project concerned. The applicant contends that the guarantee constituted unlawful state aid in so far as it was provided by COFACE acting as a public agency on the account of France which undertook responsibility to cover repayment of the credit to the bank consortium in case TVO was unable to pay and in so far as it conferred an unfair economic advantage to TVO, facilitating its access to the market and securing its future financing potential. In addition, the applicant submits that such a secured loan will enable TVO to produce electricity at a considerably lower cost.

Further, it asserts that the splitting of the file into two separate cases violates essential procedural rules and leads to incorrect assessments.

---
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4569 

To require counterterrorism information sharing coordination, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 6, 2017 

Mr. GALLAGHER (for himself, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. KATKO, Mr. GARRETT, Mr. 

HIGGINS of Louisiana, Mr. FITZPATRICK, and Mr. RUTHERFORD) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To require counterterrorism information sharing 

coordination, 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 ‘‘Counterterrorism In5 formation Sharing Improvement Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COUNTERTERRORISM INFORMATION SHARING CO7 ORDINATION. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The President, acting though the 

9 Secretary of Homeland Security, shall ensure that, for 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4569 IH

1 counterterrorism purposes, the Department of the Home2 land Security has access to biographic and biometric data 

3 collected by the United States Government on individuals 

4 associated with a terrorist organization. 

5 (b) COORDINATION.—The President shall direct the 

6 heads of relevant Federal departments and agencies to co7 ordinate with the Secretary of Homeland Security to mini8 mize and overcome any administrative, technical, capacity, 

9 or classification challenges to carrying out subsection (a). 

10 (c) PROTECTIONS.—The Secretary of Homeland Se11 curity shall ensure that all relevant laws, rules, and proce12 dures, including the section 552(a) of title 5, United 

13 States Code (commonly referred to as the ‘‘Privacy Act’’ 

14 or the ‘‘Privacy Act of 1974’’), regarding classification lev15 els and civil rights and civil liberties are followed while 

16 seeking to carry out subsection (a). 

17 (d) REPORT TO CONGRESS.— 

18 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after 

19 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

20 of Homeland Security shall, consistent with the pro21 tection of classified information, submit to the Com22 mittee on Homeland Security of the House of Rep23 resentatives and the Committee on Homeland Secu24 rity and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report 

25 on the implementation of this section. 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4569 IH

1 (2) CONTENTS.—The report required under 

2 paragraph (1) shall include a description of how the 

3 data referred to in subsection (a) is utilized for De4 partment of Homeland Security screening and vet5 ting purposes and any challenges associated with in6 corporating such data into departmental screening 

7 and vetting systems. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
# C_2012331EN.01001702.xml

| 27.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2012 –Germany v Commission

(Case T-265/08) (1)

(ERDF - Reduction of financial assistance - Operational programme falling within Objective 1 (1994-1999), concerning the Land Thüringen (Germany))

(2012/C 331/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, T. Henze, C. Blaschke and K. Petersen, acting as Agents, assisted by U. Karpenstein, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė and B. Conte, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented: initially by J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, subsequently by N. Díaz Abad and J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, and finally by A. Rubio González, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and N. Rouam, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, Y. de Vries, B. Koopman, M. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 1690 final of 30 April 2008 reducing the financial assistance granted from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the Operational Programme in the Objective 1 area of Land Thüringen (Germany) (1994-1999), in accordance with Commission Decision C(94)1939/5 of 5 August 1994

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.

---
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         January 5, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 29, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 165 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-153, CP2024-159.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2023-29014 Filed 1-4-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Fifth Amendment to BPIA Agreement



This Fifth Amendment to BPIA Agreement (the
"Fifth Amendment") is entered into as of November 10,
2001, by and between Bedford Property Investors, Inc.,
a Maryland corporation (the "Company") and Bedford
Acquisitions, Inc. (formerly known as Westminster
Holdings, Inc.), a California corporation ("BPIA")
with reference to the following facts.

                         RECITALS

   A.  Company and BPIA entered into that certain BPIA
Agreement dated as of January 1, 1995, as amended
by the Amendment to BPIA Agreement dated as of
January 1, 1997; the Second Amendment to BPIA Agreement
dated January 1, 1999; the Third Amendment to BPIA
Agreement dated December 1, 2000; the Fourth Amendment
to BPIA Agreement dated December 10, 2000 (collectively
the "Agreement"), under the terms of which
BPIA performs certain services for Company.

B.  Company and BPIA desire to amend the Agreement
       to extend the term of the Agreement and
    clarify the timing of fee payments as set
       forth herein.
AMENDMENT

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing
and the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties
agree as follows:

1. Section 1 of the Agreement is deleted in its
entirety and replace with the following:

"Term of Contract.  This Agreement will
expire on December 31, 2002.  Unless either party
has given notice to the other party of its intention
to terminate the Agreement by October 31, 2002, the
Agreement will continue through December 31, 2003.
The Company shall have the further right to terminate
this Agreement upon sixty (60) days prior notice at
any time, subject to the payment of BPIA's fees as
contemplated in Section 3 of this Agreement."

2. The Financing Fee that is earned for securing
financing and administering loans (including substitution
or release of collateral) as provided for in Section
2 (c) of the Second Amendment, is due and payable in
equal annual installments payable over the shorter of
the term of the loan or (ii) three years.  To the
extent such Financing Fees are earned for renewal or
extension of an existing loan, the first year's fee
shall be deemed earned and due on the first business
day following the maturity date of the loan that is
renewed or extended.

3. This Fifth Amendment shall be binding upon and
shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto,
their respective heirs, executors, and assigns.

4. Terms not otherwise defined in this Fifth
Amendment but which are defined in the Agreement shall
have the meanings given to them in the Agreement.

   In Witness Whereof, the parties hereto have executed
and delivered this Fifth Amendment as of the day
and year first above written.

"Company"

Bedford Property Investors, Inc., a Maryland corporation


By:/s/James R. Moore
   *******************
       James R. Moore
       Executive Vice
       President

"BPIA"

Bedford Acquisitions, Inc., a California corporation


By: /s/Peter B. Bedford
    ********************
       Peter B. Bedford
       President


- 2 -
BPIA/Fifth amend/03/26/02
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 124 (Friday, September 14, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1541-E1542]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

              HONORING CARLA LAEMMLE ON HER 103RD BIRTHDAY

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. HOWARD L. BERMAN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, September 14, 2012

  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in recognition of 
Carla Laemmle on the occasion of her 103rd birthday.
  Carla is the niece of Carl Laemmle, who founded Universal Studios. 
She grew up on the Universal Studios lot in the early days of

[[Page E1542]]

the San Fernando Valley, the area I now represent. She began her long 
professional acting career at the age of 16 with an uncredited role as 
the prima ballerina in the original silent film version of the Phantom 
of the Opera, demonstrating her many years of training in classical 
dance. Carla is perhaps best known for her role in Dracula, starring 
Bela Lugosi. Her role in Dracula made her the person who spoke the 
first line of dialogue ever in a horror movie. She is now the last 
surviving cast member of both films.
  Carla acted and danced in many more films, including Broadway Melody, 
in which she danced out of an oyster shell in a scene designed by 
famous artist and fashion designer Erte. That film became the first 
musical to win a Best Picture Oscar at the Academy Awards. And, more 
than eighty years after her debut on the silver screen, Carla will 
return to theaters soon in a new horror movie, Mansion of Blood.
  Carla continues to make her home in Hollywood, CA--a place that is 
home for her in a way that few others will ever experience. She will 
celebrate her remarkable milestone with four generations of Laemmle 
family members, many of whom have remained in Los Angeles.
  Please join me in wishing Carla a very happy birthday and many happy 
returns.

                          ____________________
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cedric Myles, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), rendered May 29, 1990, convicting him of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed *(see, People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 124 (Friday, September 14, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1541]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                NATIONAL SECURITY AND JOB PROTECTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. BETTY McCOLLUM

                              of minnesota

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 13, 2012

  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called 
National Security and Jobs Protection Act. This legislation is another 
attempt by House Republicans to force severe spending cuts that would 
harm middle class families, while protecting tax breaks for 
millionaires.
  This bill is an election year talking point, not a genuine solution 
to preventing massive across-the-board budget cuts looming in January 
2013. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office determined this 
legislation would do nothing to prevent budget sequestration. H.R. 6365 
cannot take effect unless a separate bill implementing the policies of 
the House Republican Budget becomes law. The House Republican Budget 
turns Medicare into a voucher program, runs deficits for 29 years, 
provides trillions of dollars in additional tax cuts to millionaires 
and billionaires, and forces layoffs for thousands of police officers, 
fire-fighters, and teachers. President Obama and the Democratic Senate 
would never impose such a radical and destructive plan on America's 
families and communities.
  The American people should be thankful H.R. 6365 will never become 
law, since it embodies the same flawed policies as the House Republican 
Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Resolution. It seeks to replace the budget 
sequester House Republicans originally supported with cuts to America's 
women, children, seniors, and middle class families. H.R. 6365 
insulates the Defense Department from spending reductions even though 
the Pentagon's budget doubled over the past decade and the war in Iraq 
is over. H.R. 6365 refuses to ask millionaires and billionaires to 
share the sacrifices it demands of middle class families.
  The budget sequester must be prevented from taking effect. House 
Democrats are ready to compromise and vote to replace the sequester 
with a balanced deficit reduction plan that includes a combination of 
spending reductions and revenue increases. Every mainstream economist 
agrees this is the only approach that will reduce long-term deficits 
and avoid plunging the economy back into recession. Regrettably, the 
bill on the floor today chooses ideology over compromise and prolongs 
the wait for the solutions our economy needs to grow and create jobs.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 6365.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4722 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.4722

                     One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 111 Market Street in Saugerties, New York, as the ``Maurice D. Hinchey 
                         Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MAURICE D. HINCHEY POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 111 Market Street in Saugerties, New York, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Maurice D. Hinchey Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Maurice D. 
Hinchey Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```