alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.11.1

CORPORATE TRADENAME AND TRADEMARK AGREEMENTAMENDMENT

DuPont and DPI hereby agree to amend the Corporate Tradename and Trademark Agreement made and entered into by them May 7, 1998, as follows:

Section 5.1(c)
is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following language:

"5.1(c)
If the Licensor ceases to be the largest shareholder of common stock of the Licensee, and the new largest shareholder is, in the Licensor's reasonable judgment, someone other
than a passive shareholder."

|E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO.       |  | DUPONT PHOTOMASKS, INC.                            
|----------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|By: /s/ SUSAN M. STALNECKER         |  | By: /s/ JOHN M. LYNN                               
|Name: Susan M. Stalnecker           |  | Name: John M. Lynn                                 
|Title: Vice President and Treasurer |  | Title: Executive Vice President and General Counsel

---

QuickLinks
ex10-2.htm








EXHIBIT 10.2


 






4 Tri Harbor Court


Port Washington, NY 11050


Tel: (516) 627 6000


Fax: (516) 627 6093


 



	

www.aceto.com

	Albert L. Eilender
	 	Chairman & Chief Executive Officer







 


 




	
January 10, 2012


	  
	
By Hand Delivery


	
Mr. Frank DeBenedittis


	
c/o Aceto Corporation


	
4 Tri Harbor Court


	
Port Washington, NY 11050


	  
	
Dear Mr. DeBenedittis:







 


Pursuant to Section 1 of the employment agreement between you and Aceto Corporation (“Aceto”), dated as of March 24, 2009 (the “Employment Agreement”), this letter shall serve as notice under the Employment Agreement that the Employment Period (as defined in the Employment Agreement) will not be extended.  This notice is effective as of the date hereof and, unless terminated sooner, the Employment Period will expire at midnight on March 23, 2012.







The Employment Agreement will continue to govern your employment with Aceto until the end of the Employment Period. You are not entitled to any payments or benefits under the Employment Agreement solely as a result of Aceto’s delivery of this notice.  Nothing in the foregoing paragraph shall be construed as affecting (i) any other right you or Aceto may have under any other provision of the Employment Agreement, including, without limitation, your or Aceto’s ability to terminate the Employment Agreement and your employment thereunder, or (ii) your obligations under Section 6 (“Confidential Information”) and Section 7 (“Non-Compete; Non-Solicitation”) of the Employment Agreement, which will survive the expiration of the Employment Period and remain in full force and effect.







Enclosed is a copy of the Aceto Corporation Severance Policy (the “Severance Policy”).  The Severance Policy will succeed the Employment Agreement and, if then in effect, will generally apply in the event of your termination of employment with Aceto following the expiration of the Employment Agreement.




 



	
ACETO CORPORATION


	
 


	  
	
/s/ Albert L. Eilender


	
By: Albert L. Eilender


	
Title: Chairman & CEO


	  
	
Enclosures
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1983 Referred in House (RFH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 1983

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 16, 1996

                 Referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

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

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND 
              REPATRIATION ACT.

    (a) Written Consent Required if Native American Remains Are 
Excavated or Removed for Purposes of Study.--Section 3(c) of the Native 
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3002(c)) is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end of the 
        paragraph;
            (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and inserting 
        ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(5) in the case of any intentional excavation or removal 
        of Native American human remains for purposes of study, such 
        remains are excavated or removed after written consent is 
        obtained from--
                    ``(A) lineal descendants, if known or readily 
                ascertainable; or
                    ``(B) each appropriate Indian tribe or Native 
                Hawaiian organization.''.
    (b) Requirements for Inadvertent Discoveries.--Section 3(d) of the 
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 
3002(d)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``with respect to tribal 
        lands, if known or readily ascertainable'' and inserting ``. 
        With respect to tribal lands, such notification shall be 
        provided to each appropriate Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian 
        organization,''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following: 
        ``Any person or entity that disposes of or controls any such 
        cultural item shall adhere to the applicable requirements of 
        subsection (c).''.

            Passed the Senate September 13, 1996.

            Attest:

                                             Kelly D. Johnston,

                                                             Secretary.
```
Exhibit
      32.2





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL**


**LEV
      PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.**


**FORM
      10-QSB FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2005**


**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 Lev Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Douglas J. Beck, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,
      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.





Date:
                August 9, 2006
            
            /s/
                Douglas J. BeckDouglas
                J. BeckChief
                Financial Officer
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2188

To provide for the retention of the name of the mountain at the Devils

Tower National Monument in Wyoming known as ‘‘Devils Tower’’, and

for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 2, 1996

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

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To provide for the retention of the name of the mountain

at the Devils Tower National Monument in Wyoming

known as ‘‘Devils Tower’’, 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. DESIGNATION OF DEVILS TOWER.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The mountain at the Devils

5 Tower National Monument in Wyoming, located at 44 de6 grees, 42 minutes, 58 seconds north latitude, 104 degrees,

7 35 minutes, 32 seconds west longitude, shall be known and

8 designated as ‘‘Devils Tower’’.
2

•S 2188 IS

1 (b) LEGAL REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law,

2 map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the

3 United States to the mountain referred to in subsection

4 (a) is deemed to be a reference to ‘‘Devils Tower’’.

Æ
### 1/2 

## EASA AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE

AD No : 2008-0033

Date: 19 February 2008

No person may operate an aircraft to which an Airworthi ness Directive applies, except in accordance with the requirements of that Airworthiness Directive unless otherwi se agree with the Authority of the State of Registry.



### Type Approval Holder’s Name: Dowty Propellers Type/Model designation(s): R354, R375, R389 and R390 propellers

TCDS: United Kingdom Numbers 103, 109, 112 and 113.
Foreign AD No.: Not applicable
Supersedure: None



### ATA 61 Propellers – Blade Outer Sleeve - Inspection

Manufacturer(s): Dowty Propellers (part of GE Aviation Systems)
Applicability: Models R354/4-123-F/13, R354/4 -123-F/20, R375/4-123-F/21, R389/4-123-F/25, R389/4-123-F/26 and R390/4-123-F/27 propellers, all serial numbers. These propellers are known to be inst alled on Saab SF340A and 340B aircraft.
Reason: A number of propeller blade outer sleeves have been found with cracks since 1996. Testing has shown that blade retenti on integrity is not affected by this cracking. However, this condition, if not detected and corrected, can lead to blade counterweight release, possibly resulting in damage to the aircraft and injury to occupants or persons on the ground. For the reason stated above, this AD requires the inspection of the blade outer sleeves and replacement of propeller blades where the outer sleeve is found to have crack indications.

Effective Date: 04 March 2008
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless previously accomplished: (1) At the next scheduled 1 600 Flight Hours (FH) aircraft check after the effective date of this AD, or after any blade accumulates 15 000 FH time in service, whichever occurs later, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1 600 FH, inspect the blade outer sleeves for cracks; (2) When during any inspection as requir ed by paragraph (1) of this AD, visual indication of a crack on the outer sleeve is found, before next flight, replace the affected propeller blade with an airworthy unit; (3) Replacement of the blade does not constitute terminating action for the inspection requirements of this AD.

### 2/2 Ref. Publications: Dowty Propellers Aler t Service Bulletin No. SF340-61-A106. The use of later approved revisions of this document is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this AD.
Remarks: 1. If request ed and appropriately substantiat ed, EASA can accept Alternative methods of Compliance for this AD. 2. This AD has been published as PAD 08-011 on 18 January 2008 for consultation until 15 February 2008. No comments were received during the consultation period. 3. Enquiries regarding this AD should be addressed to the AD Focal Point, Certification Directorate, EASA – E-mail: ADs@easa.europa.eu 4. For any questions concerning the tech nical content of the requirements in this AD, please contact: Dowty Propellers, Anson Business Park, Cheltenham Road East, Gloucester GL2 9QN, United Kingdom; Telephone: +44 (0) 1452 716067; Fax +44 (0) 1452 716001; E-mail Mike.Towkan@ge.com
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 6775

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
KEVIN MYELL SLADE , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Greenville

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 4:08

- cr - 00003

- FL

- 1 )

Submitted : August 19, 2021 Decided: August 24, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD , and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Kevin Myell Slade , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kevin Myell Slade seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his motion to correct the presentence report and his sentence as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissing it as successive and unauthorized. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B).
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When, as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a
constitution al right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v.
McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Slade has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>  THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
          EXTRACTED FROM THE NUTRONICS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
          FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31,
          1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
          SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>   1
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR           
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                      DEC-31-1996
<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
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                               87,592
<OTHER-SE>                           (76,351)
<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>                        (8,537)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                          (8,537)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (.00)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.16

                PRENTISS PROPERTIES ACQUISITION PARTNERS, L.P.


   Seventh Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited
         Partnership of Prentiss Properties Acquisition Partners, L.P.


                                   RECITALS

          A.  Belair Real Estate Corporation ("Assignor") desires to assign and
                                               --------
Belcrest Realty Corporation ("Assignee") desires to acquire 115,000 Series B
                              --------
Cumulative Redeemable Perpetual Preferred Units (the "Assigned Units") of
                                                      --------------
Prentiss Properties Acquisition Partners, L.P. (the "Partnership").
                                                     -----------

          Pursuant to Article XI of the Second Amended and Restated Agreement of
Limited Partnership, as amended (as so amended, the "Agreement"), of the
                                                     ---------
Partnership, Prentiss Properties I, Inc. as the sole general partner of the
Partnership (the "General Partner"), desires to amend the Agreement to admit
                  ---------------
Assignee as a Substitute Limited Partner with respect to the Assigned Units.

          NOW, THEREFORE, the General Partner hereby adopts the following
amendment to the Agreement:

          1.  Exhibit A to the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its
entirety as set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto.
                         ---------

          2.  Assignee accepts and agrees to be bound by the terms and
provisions of the Agreement.

                           [Signature Page Follows]
<PAGE>

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the General Partner and the Assignee have executed
this Seventh Amendment as of August 31, 1999.

                         GENERAL PARTNER

                         PRENTISS PROPERTIES I, INC.


                         By: /s/ Michael A. Ernst
                             -------------------------------------
                             Name:  Michael A. Ernst
                             Title: Chief Financial Officer


                         ASSIGNEE AND SUBSTITUTE LIMITED PARTNER:

                         BELCREST REALTY CORPORATION


                         By: /s/ Thomas E. Faust
                             -------------------------------------
                             Name:  Thomas E. Faust
                             Title: Executive Vice President
Exhibit






EXHIBIT 10.10
GLOBAL AMENDMENT TO
PHANTOM UNIT AGREEMENTS
UNDER THE WESTLAKE CHEMICAL PARTNERS LP
LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN


This Global Amendment to Phantom Unit Agreements under the Westlake Chemical Partners LP Long-Term Incentive Plan is hereby adopted by Westlake Chemical Partners GP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “General Partner”), as of [●], 2016 (the “Effective Date”).  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Westlake Chemical Partners LP Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “LTIP”).
WHEREAS, the General Partner has previously granted Phantom Units under the LTIP to Directors pursuant to the terms and conditions of Phantom Unit Agreements (collectively, the “Outstanding Phantom Unit Agreements”) between the General Partner and such Directors (the “Director Grantees”); 
WHEREAS, pursuant to the LTIP and the Outstanding Phantom Unit Agreements, the terms and conditions of the Outstanding Phantom Unit Agreements may be amended without the consent of any Director Grantee, provided that such amendment does not materially reduce the benefits to any Director Grantee who holds an Award subject to such amendment; and  
WHEREAS, the General Partner desires to amend each Outstanding Phantom Unit Agreement to provide for the ability for the Director Grantees to elect to receive settlement of the Phantom Units granted thereunder in cash or Units.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, effective as of the Effective Date, the Outstanding Phantom Unit Agreements are hereby amended as follows:
Section 4 is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
“Settlement of Phantom Units. As soon as administratively practicable after the vesting of a Phantom Unit, but not later than 30 days thereafter, the General Partner will pay, or cause to be paid, to the Director a cash payment equal to the Fair Market Value of a Unit on the date such Phantom Unit becomes vested in settlement of such Phantom Unit; provided, however, that, subject to compliance with the Partnership’s insider trading policies and all applicable laws, the Director may elect, in accordance with an executed election on the form prescribed by the Committee (the “Election Form”), to have all or a portion of the Phantom Units that vest on the Vesting Date be settled in Units in lieu of cash by delivering to the Committee an executed Election Form no earlier than 90 days and no later than 30 days prior to the Vesting Date.”







Except as expressly amended hereby, the Phantom Unit Agreements shall remain in full force and effect and are specifically ratified and reaffirmed.
#### Warde H. ERWIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of OREGON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-35830.

D.C. No. CV-01-00177-FR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 22, 2002 *.

Decided July 30, 2002.

Before BROWNING, KOZINSKI, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, we deny Erwin’s "Motion re Oral Argument.”

MEMORANDUM **

Oregon attorney Warde H. Erwin appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging that Oregon’s mandatory professional liability coverage for state bar members in private practice is unconstitutional. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal, *Love v. United States,*915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir.1989), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because the principle of res judicata barred Erwin’s attempt to relitigate claims resolved against Erwin in the Oregon courts. *See Red Fox v. Red Fox,*564 F.2d 361, 363 (9th Cir.1977); *see also*
      *123
      *Troutman v. Erlandson,*287 Or. 187, 598 P.2d 1211, 1219 (1979).

Erwin’s contentions regarding a “manufactured theory” between the district court and defendants, and the existence of a “justiciable controversy” are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Circuit Rulé 36-3.
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 EP MedSystems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), each of the undersigned,
in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies 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 results of operation of
         the Company


Date:  March 30, 2005                 /s/ Reinhard Schmidt
                                      ----------------------------------------
                                      Reinhard Schmidt
                                      President and Chief Executive Officer
                                      (Principal Executive Officer)