alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
cers-ex106_597.htm



Exhibit 10.6

 

Execution Copy

 

This Amendment #3 (this “Amendment”) to that certain Supply and Manufacturing Agreement, dated March 1, 2008, by and between Cerus Corporation (“Cerus”) and Porex Corporation (“Porex”), as amended on November 28, 2012 and December 23, 2014 (together, the “Amendments”) (as amended by the Amendments, the “Agreement”), is made as of December 20, 2016. Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings set forth therefor in the Agreement.  

Recitals

WHEREAS, the parties entered into a Letter of Intent on December 1, 2016 (the “Letter of Intent”), which Letter of Intent contemplates entering into a definitive agreement to amend and restate the Agreement on or before December 15, 2016; and  

WHEREAS, the parties are still in the process of negotiating the aforementioned definitive agreement; and 

WHEREAS, the Agreement terminates on December 31, 2016; and  

WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement as provided in this Amendment in order to effectively negotiate a mutually agreeable definitive agreement, while maintaining the continuity of manufacture and supply of Products to Cerus; and  

WHEREAS, this Amendment is an amendment of the Agreement pursuant to and within the scope of Section 13.1 of the Agreement.

Amendment

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises and intending to be legally bound, the parties agree as follows:

4.Section 12.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

This Supply Agreement will have a term (the “Initial Term”) which will run from the Effective Date through January 31, 2017.

5.Except as modified herein, the provisions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

6.This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which together shall be deemed to constitute one instrument.

 

Page 1 of 2

 

 



 

The foregoing amendment is hereby executed as of the date first above written.

 


	
 
	
 
	
Cerus Corporation

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
By: 
	
/s/ Chrystal Menard

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
Chrystal Menard

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
Porex Corporation

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
By: 
	
/s/ Jon Peacock

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
Name: 
	
Jon Peacock

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
Title: 
	
President Life Sciences




 

Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
     I, Hollings C. Renton, Chairman of the Board, President andChief Executive Officer of Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., certify that:
**1.**I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of OnyxPharmaceuticals, Inc. (the“registrant”); and
**2.**Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport.
Dated: March 24, 2005     /s/ Hollings C. Renton   Hollings C. Renton Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1974

To amend the Social Security Act to clarify that the reasonable efforts

requirement includes consideration of the health and safety of the child.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 18, 1996

Mr. DEWINE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Social Security Act to clarify that the reasonable efforts requirement includes consideration of the

health and safety of the child.

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

3 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF REASONABLE EFFORTS RE4 QUIREMENT BEFORE PLACEMENT IN FOSTER

5 CARE.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 471(a)(15) of the Social

7 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 671(a)(15)) is amended to read

8 as follows:

9 ‘‘(15) provides that, in each case—

10 ‘‘(A) reasonable efforts will be made—
2

•S 1974 IS

1 ‘‘(i) prior to the placement of the

2 child in foster care, to prevent or eliminate

3 the need for removing the child from the

4 child’s home; and

5 ‘‘(ii) to make it possible for the child

6 to return home; and

7 ‘‘(B) in determining reasonable efforts, the

8 best interests of the child, including the child’s

9 health and safety, shall be of primary con10 cern;’’.

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—

12 (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para13 graph (2), the amendment made by subsection (a)

14 shall be effective on the date of the enactment of

15 this Act.

16 (2) EXCEPTION.—In the case of a State plan

17 for foster care and adoption assistance under part E

18 of title IV of the Social Security Act which the Sec19 retary of Health and Human Services determines re20 quires State legislation (other than legislation appro21 priating funds) in order for the plan to meet the ad22 ditional requirement imposed by the amendment

23 made by subsection (a), such plan shall not be re24 garded as failing to comply with the requirements of

25 such title solely on the basis of its failure to meet
3

•S 1974 IS

1 this additional requirement before the first day of

2 the first calendar quarter beginning after the close

3 of the first regular session of the State legislature

4 that begins after the date of the enactment of this

5 Act. For purposes of the previous sentence, in the

6 case of a State that has a 2-year legislative session,

7 each year of such session shall be deemed to be a

8 separate regular session of the State legislature.

Æ
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Jamie Lee Coker, Appellant

No. 06

- 12

- 00085

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 188th District Court of Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 32982

- A ). Opinion delivered by Chie f Justice Morriss, Justice Carter and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We n ote that the appellant, Jamie Lee Coker, has adequately indicated his inability to pay
costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JUNE 19, 2013 BY OR DER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
yumc-ex1020_1281.htm



 

Exhibit 10.20

 


	

	
 
	





 

February 6, 2017

Joey Wat

Private and confidential

 

Dear Joey, 

Congratulations!

With the approval of the Board, I am pleased to inform you that you are appointed President and Chief Operating Officer, Yum China, effective February 8, 2017. You will continue to report to the CEO Yum China Holdings, Inc. In your new role, Johnson Huang of General Manager KFC, Peter Kao of PHDI CEO, Jeff Kuai of PHHS BGM, and Alice Wang of VP PA will report directly to you.

In connection with this appointment, the following compensation package will apply to you.


	
 
	
-
	
Your base salary is increased to USD 750,000 per annum, payable in arrears of 12 equal monthly payments.





	
 
	
-
	
Your Bonus target pay is increased to 100% of USD 750,000 your new base salary X Individual Performance Rating X Team Factor.





	
 
	
-
	
You will continue to be eligible to participate in the Company's Long Term Incentive- Stock Appreciation Right (SAR) Program. Grant size and value may change from year to year. Your 2017 LTl SAR grant is USD 3,000,000 (Face Value).





	
 
	
-
	
In addition, a one-time Restricted Share Unit (RSU) award at USD 2,000,000 economic value will be granted to you. The award will be 100% vested at the 4th-grant anniversary (4-year cliff vest).





	
 
	
-
	
You will need to attain 20% of the Stock Ownership Guideline each year over a five-year period. You will receive further information on the Yum China Stock Ownership Guideline upon the approval of the Board.





	
 
	
-
	
There is no change to the other terms and conditions of employment.




On behalf of the Board of Directors, I would like to thank you for your contributions in the past year and look forward to your continuous commitment & leadership in bringing the Company to the next level of success in the years to come.

Yours sincerely,

 


	
/s/ Micky Pant

	
Micky Pant

	
CEO, Yum China

	
 

	
c.c. Christabel Lo
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1983

AN ACT

To amend the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act to provide for Native Hawaiian organizations, 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,
2

S 1983 ES

1 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIVE AMERICAN

2 GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION

3 ACT.

4 (a) WRITTEN CONSENT REQUIRED IF NATIVE AMER5 ICAN REMAINS ARE EXCAVATED OR REMOVED FOR PUR6 POSES OF STUDY.—Section 3(c) of the Native American

7 Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C.

8 3002(c)) is amended—

9 (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the

10 end of the paragraph;

11 (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and

12 inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

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

14 paragraph:

15 ‘‘(5) in the case of any intentional excavation or

16 removal of Native American human remains for pur17 poses of study, such remains are excavated or re18 moved after written consent is obtained from—

19 ‘‘(A) lineal descendants, if known or read20 ily ascertainable; or

21 ‘‘(B) each appropriate Indian tribe or Na22 tive Hawaiian organization.’’.

23 (b) REQUIREMENTS FOR INADVERTENT DISCOV24 ERIES.—Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Pro25 tection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3002(d)) is

26 amended—
3

S 1983 ES

1 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘with respect

2 to tribal lands, if known or readily ascertainable’’

3 and inserting ‘‘. With respect to tribal lands, such

4 notification shall be provided to each appropriate In5 dian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization,’’; and

6 (2) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the

7 following: ‘‘Any person or entity that disposes of or

8 controls any such cultural item shall adhere to the

9 applicable requirements of subsection (c).’’.

Passed the Senate September 13, 1996.

Attest:

Secretary.
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1983

AN ACT

To amend the Native American Graves Protection

waiian organizations, and for other purposes.and Repatriation Act to provide for Native Ha-
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 20-60525 

Summary Calendar 

Talal Saleh Abdo Rowaid, also known as Telel Rowid, also 

known as Telal Saleh Rowaid, also known as Randy Nagi, also 

known as Ali Nagi, also known as Randy Ali Mohammad, also 

known as Naji Ali Mohammad, 

Petitioner, 

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent. 

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals 

BIA No. A055 780 083 

Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

Talal Saleh Abdo Rowaid, a native and citizen of Yemen, petitions for 

review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

September 24, 2021 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 20-60525 Document: 00516029706 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/24/2021
No. 20-60525 

2 

dismissing his appeal from the denial of his applications for applications for 

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention 

Against Torture (CAT). We can review a final order of removal only when 

“the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as 

of right.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). To exhaust administrative remedies, the 

petitioner must first raise the issue before the BIA “either on direct appeal 

or in a motion to reopen.” Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318 (5th Cir. 2009). 

The BIA summarily dismissed Rowaid’s appeal of the denial of his 

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the 

CAT, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(G), because it was not filed 

within the 30-day time limit for such appeals. Rowaid does not argue that the 

summary dismissal was improper and has thus abandoned this issue. See 

Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008); Soadjede v. 

Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Even if Rowaid had not 

abandoned the issue, we review a summary dismissal for an abuse of 

discretion. Rioja v. Ashcroft, 317 F.3d 514, 515 (5th Cir. 2003). The BIA did 

not abuse its discretion by summarily dismissing the appeal because it was 

not filed within the specified period. See Townsend v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice 

I.N.S., 799 F.2d 179, 181-82 (5th Cir. 1986). 

Accordingly, the respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal is 

GRANTED, and Rowaid’s petition for review is DISMISSED. Rowaid’s 

motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

Case: 20-60525 Document: 00516029706 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/24/2021
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 Cal-Bay International, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles
A.  Prebay,  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  to  the  best  of  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  result of operations of the
Company.




                              By: /s/ Charles  A.  Prebay
                              ---------------------------
                              Charles  A.  Prebay
                              Chief  Financial  Officer

Date: May 13, 2004
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 5, 2020

No. 04-19-00464-CR

Troy David CAMPEAU,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16-755-CR

Honorable Kirsten Cohoon, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On January 21, 2020, we ordered the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine 

whether appellant was indigent. On February 24, 2020, a supplemental clerk’s record containing 

the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law was filed. In its findings of fact and 

conclusions of law, the trial court found that appellant is indigent and entitled to appointed 

counsel. Also included in the supplemental clerk’s record is an order appointing Shane 

Stolarcyzck as appellant’s appellate counsel. 

We ORDER that appellant’s brief is due on April 6, 2020.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

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

court on this 5th day of March, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

 

We have issued our reports dated November 8, 2005 accompanying i) management’s assessment of the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting of Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. as of August 31, 2005; ii) the consolidated financial statements of Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. as of August 31, 2005 and for each of the two years in the period endedAugust 31, 2005 and for the eleven months ended August 31, 2003; iii) the consolidated balance sheet of Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P. as of August 31, 2005; and iv) the consolidated balance sheet of Energy Transfer Partners, L.L.C. as of August31, 2005, all included in the Annual Report of Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. on Form 10-K for the year ended August 31, 2005. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Energy TransferPartners, L.P. on Form S-4 (File Nos. 333-40407 and 333-125036) and Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-120770, 333-123491, 333-86057 and 333-107324). 

 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP 

 

Tulsa, Oklahoma 

November 11, 2005
**Exhibit 24.1****SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY****POWER OF ATTORNEY**     The undersigned, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, a California corporation, and certain ofits officers and/or directors do each hereby constitute and appoint, STEPHEN E. PICKETT, THOMAS M.NOONAN, POLLY L. GAULT, BARBARA E. MATHEWS, LINDA G. SULLIVAN, ROBERT C. BOADA, GEORGE T. TABATA,PAIGE W. R. WHITE, MICHAEL A. HENRY, KEITH J. LARSON, KATHLEEN BRENNAN DE JESUS, JEFFERY D. DURAN,DARLA F. FORTE, BONITA J. SMITH, MARGA ROSSO, and SARAH C. PEREZ or any of them, to act asattorney-in-fact, for and in their respective names, places, and steads, to execute, sign, and fileor cause to be filed an Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007,Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for each of the first three quarters of fiscal year 2008, anyCurrent Reports on Form 8-K from time to time during 2008 and through December 11, 2008, or in theevent this Board of Directors does not meet on December 11, 2008, through the next succeeding dateon which this Board holds a regular meeting, and any and all supplements and amendments thereto, tobe filed by Southern California Edison Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission, underthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended, (the “Act”), for the purpose of complying withSections 13 or 15(d) of the Act, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact, and each of them, full powerand authority to do and perform all and every act and thing whatsoever requisite, necessary andappropriate to be done in and about the premises as fully and to all intents and purposes as theundersigned or any of them might or could do if personally present, hereby ratifying and approvingthe acts of each of said attorneys-in-fact.
 

 
Executed at Rosemead, California, as of this 13th day of December, 2007.      SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

Registrant had the following significant subsidiaries as of June 18, 1999:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

       Name                            State of Incorporation            Percentage Ownership
       ----                            ----------------------            --------------------
<S>                                        <C>                                   <C>
North Star Plating Company                 Minnesota                             100%
Inteuro Parts Distributors, Inc.            Florida                              100%
Republic Automotive Parts, Inc.             Delaware                             100%
Fenders & More, Inc.                       Tennessee                              (1)
</TABLE>
------------------
(1) a wholly-owned subsidiary of Republic Automotive Parts, Inc.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 5, 2018

No. 04-18-00473-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B.W.C., A CHILD,

From the County Court, Jim Wells County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11-06-50160-CV

Honorable David A. Sanchez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellee’s motion to dismiss appeal for want of prosecution is hereby DENIED.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 5th day of October, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDWARD NOLAN NORWOOD, a.k.a.

Polo, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

 v. 

RICHARD IVES, 

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-35908 

D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00733-CL 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 15, 2018**

Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Edward Norwood appeals pro se from the district court’s 

judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s denial of a section 

2241 habeas petition, see Bowen v. Hood, 202 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 2000), and 

 

* 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

AUG 22 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-35908

we affirm.

Norwood argues that he is entitled to credit toward his federal sentence for 

the time spent in custody between April 17, 2014, and October 30, 2015. Under 18 

U.S.C. § 3585(b), a defendant cannot receive “double credit”—that is, credit going 

towards two separate sentences—for time spent in presentence custody. See 

United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 337 (1992). Because the record reflects that 

the state of California credited this time towards Norwood’s prior state sentence, 

he is not entitled to credit this period towards his federal sentence. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3585(b).

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Armen BAKUNTS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 01-50731.

D.C. No. CR-01-00329-MMM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 13, 2003.*

Decided Jan. 21, 2003.

Before BEEZER, KLEINFELD and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Armen Bakunts appeals his conviction and 8-month sentence after his guilty plea *448to two counts of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no issue for appeal.

Accordingly, we GRANT the motion to withdraw as counsel of record for appellant and the district court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.