alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.3(B)

 

[***] Certain information in this document has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the omitted portions.

 

CONFIDENTIAL

 

December 22, 2011

 

Marina Biotech, Inc.

3830 Monte Villa Parkway

Bothell, Washington 98021

Attn:  Michael French, Chief executive Officer

 

Re:                             Agreement re Option Compound and miR-34 Sequences

 

Dear Michael:

 

As you know, Mirna Therapeutics, Inc. (“MirnaRx”) and Marina Biotech, Inc. (“Marina Bio”) are entering into that certain License Agreement effective as of the date set forth above (the “License Agreement”).  This letter agreement is that certain Side Agreement referred to in the License Agreement, and it sets forth the RNA oligonucleotide sequences of certain MirnaRx Compounds which are covered by rights under the Licensed Agreement.

 

The Parties hereby agree that the list of RNA oligonucleotide sequences attached as the Appendix of this letter agreement comprises sequences of the Option Compounds and miR-34, as such terms are used in the Licensed Agreement, and that such list may be amended by MirnaRx as provided in Section 2.6 of the Licensed Agreement, to [***].  The Parties further agree that such sequences are the highly confidential information of MirnaRx, and Marina Bio shall not disclose such sequences to any third party or use them for any purpose outside of the License Agreement.

 

	
AGREED TO BY
    	
Mirna Therapeutics, Inc.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Signature:
    	
/s/ Paul   Lammers
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Paul   Lammers, M.D., M.Sc.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Chief   Executive Officer
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Marina   Biotech, Inc.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Signature:
    	
/s/ Michael   French
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Michael   French
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Chief   Executive Officer
    


 











 

APPENDIX

 

Option Compound Sequences:

 

[***]

 

miR-34 Sequence:

 

[***]

 

[***] Certain information in this document has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the omitted portions.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 14, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 68129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29084]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers


Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplement II to the Final 
EIS for the Proposed New Water Supply Reservoir Located in Williamson 
and Johnson Counties, for the City of Marion, IL

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville District, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The City of Marion Illinois, has previously applied to the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Louisville District for a 
Department of the Army permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean 
Water Act for placement of material in Sugar Creek, Williamson County, 
as part of the construction of a new municipal water supply reservoir.

DATES: Written comments received by January 14, 2001, will be 
considered by the Corps in decision making for the Final Supplement II 
to the Final EIS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding the Draft 
Supplement II to the Final EIS may be directed to Mr. Ronny J. Sadri, 
Project Manager, Regulatory Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 
Louisville District, P.O. Box 59, Louisville, KY 40201-0059, ATTN: 
CELRL-OP-FN, (502) 315-6681.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed action by the City of Marion is 
a new 1,172-acre water supply reservoir located in Williamson and 
Johnson Counties, Illinois, near the community of Creal Springs. The 
Lake of Egypt Water District has an agreement in principle with the 
City of Marion to purchase water if a new lake on Sugar Creek is built. 
Two pipelines would be constructed for transport of water for 
treatment.
    As part of the Corps review process, this Draft Supplement II to 
the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared. The 
Louisville District prepared a Draft EIS and released it to the public 
for comment in October 1994. A public hearing was held in December 
1994. A Final EIS was prepared and released to the public for comment 
in July 1995. A Draft Supplement I was prepared and released to the 
public for comment in May 1996.
    This Draft Supplement II to the Final EIS examines single source 
options as well as combinations of separate alternatives to satisfy 
current and future water needs of Marion and the Lake of Egypt Water 
District as separate entities. This Draft Supplement II incorporates 
the Draft and Final EIS and the Draft and Final Supplement I by 
reference.

Gary J. Gumm,
LTC, Corps of Engineers, Deputy Commander.
[FR Doc. 00-29084 Filed 11-13-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-JB-M
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
                                                                    ------------

          STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER ORDINARY SHARE
                   (in thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                              Three months ended
                                                                                  March 31,
                                                                                1997      1998
                                                                                ----      ----
<S>                                                                            <C>        <C>
BASIC

Total weighted average ordinary and ordinary equivalent shares outstanding       9,485   10,047
                                                                               =======   =======

Net income                                                                     $ 2,936   $ 6,314
                                                                               =======   =======
 
Net income per ordinary share(1)                                               $  0.31   $  0.63
                                                                               =======   =======
DILUTED

Computation of ordinary and ordinary equivalent shares outstanding:

Weighted average ordinary shares outstanding                                     9,485    10,047

Dilutive equivalent ordinary shares issuable upon exercise of options              724       662

Total weighted average ordinary and ordinary equivalent shares outstanding      10,209    10,709
                                                                               =======   =======
Net income                                                                     $ 2,936   $ 6,314
                                                                               =======   =======
 
Net income per ordinary share(1)                                               $  0.29   $  0.59
                                                                               =======   =======
</TABLE>


1.  Each Ordinary Share is represented by four American Depositary Shares
    ("ADSs"), which are the securities that are publicly traded. Net Income per
    Ordinary Share is therefore within rounding, four times net income per
    equivalent ADS.
    
    Subsequent to March 31, 1998, the Company's shareholders approved a proposal
    at the Company's 1998 Annual General meeting to subdivide each of the
    Ordinary Shares of IR37.5p into four Ordinary Shares of IR9.375p (the
    "Ordinary Share Split"). As a consequence of the Ordinary Share Split,
    effective May 22, 1998 each ADS will represent and be exchangeable for one
    Ordinary Share (the "Ratio Change"). Aside from the Ratio Change, the
    Ordinary Share Split will have no effect on the ADSs. The Ordinary Share
    Split will have no effect on the number of ADSs outstanding and, in and of
    itself, is not expected to have an effect on the market price of the ADSs.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT



In connection with
the Quarterly Report of Highwoods Realty Limited Partnership (the Operating Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Ronald P. Gibson, Chief Executive Officer of Highwoods Properties, Inc., general partner of the Operating Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 operations of the Operating Partnership.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                            
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                            
|/s/ RONALD P. GIBSON                                                        
|                                                                            
|Ronald P. Gibson Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner May 17, 2004
|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                         
|View History: Annual                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                   
|View History:                                                          
|                                                                       
|Guam Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1 (Number of Elements)
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|Guam Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1 (Number of Elements)
|                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 1      | 1      | 1      | 1      | 1      | 1      | 1      | 0     
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | NA     | 0      | NA     | 0     
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 11 Filed 05/19/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 127
Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 11 Filed 05/19/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 128
Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 11 Filed 05/19/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 129
Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 11 Filed 05/19/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 130
CORRECTED COPY

The FAA is reissuing the letter dated July 2nd. A correction was made to add the “What You 

Should Do” section. Below is the letter that includes the change. We made the correction in 

our records as of July 6, 2015.

July 2, 2015

Mr. Frank Datzer

DCP Video LLC

6401 North Sunset Lane

Milwaukee, WI 53217

Dear Mr. Datzer:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your March 27, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0805), 

but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not 

comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any 

further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.
2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
Case 5:22-cr-00034-H-BQ Document 382 Filed 08/08/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 891
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 279

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas there are credible reports that on July 13,

1994, vessels of the Cuban Government fired highpressure water hoses, repeatedly rammed, and deliberately sank the ‘‘13th of March’’, a tugboat carrying

72 unarmed Cuban citizens;

Whereas approximately 40 of the men, women, and children passengers on the ‘‘13th of March’’ drowned as

a result of the actions of the Cuban Government, including over 20 children aboard;

Whereas President Clinton deplored the sinking of the

‘‘13th of March’’ as ‘‘another example of the brutal

nature of the Cuban regime’’;
2

•HCON 279 EH

Whereas on August 20, 1994, the President pledged that

‘‘The United States will continue to bring before the

United Nations and other international organizations

evidence of human rights abuses, such as the sinking

of the tugboat ‘13th of March.’ Meanwhile, we will

pursue this matter with vigor and determination.’’;

Whereas all of the male survivors of the ‘‘13th of March’’

have been imprisoned by the Cuban Government;

Whereas the freedom to emigrate is an internationally

recognized human right and freedom’s fundamental

guarantor of last resort; and

Whereas the Cuban Government, by prohibiting the existence of a free press and by jamming TV and Radio

Marti, denies the Cuban people the right of free access to information, including information about this

tragedy: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) condemns the Cuban Government for delib4 erately sinking on July 13, 1994, the ‘‘13th of

5 March’’, a tugboat carrying 72 unarmed Cuban citi6 zens, causing the death of approximately 40 Cuban

7 citizens, including over 20 children;

8 (2) urges the President to direct the United

9 States Representative to the United Nations to urge

10 the United Nations Security Council to adopt a reso11 lution that—
3

•HCON 279 EH

1 (A) condemns the sinking of the ‘‘13th of

2 March’’; and

3 (B) provides for a full internationally su4 pervised investigation of the incident;

5 (3) urges the President to direct the United

6 States Representative to the United Nations to urge

7 the United Nations High Commissioner for Human

8 Rights to investigate the sinking of the ‘‘13th of

9 March’’; and

10 (4) urges the Cuban Government—

11 (A) to release from prison and cease in12 timidation measures against all survivors of the

13 sinking of the ‘‘13th of March’’;

14 (B) to identify all individuals missing from

15 such sinking;

16 (C) to recover the bodies of the dead from

17 such sinking; and

18 (D) to return such bodies to their families

19 so that these men, women, and children may

20 have appropriate burial services.

Passed the House of Representatives October 4,

1994.

Attest:

Clerk.
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 279

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Condemning the July 13, 1994, sinking of the

ment.Cuban citizens, by vessels of the Cuban Govern-‘‘13th of March’’, a tugboat carrying 72 unarmed
| (logo)  WELLS FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon Street  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Referenceis hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of April1, 2015, by and among J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.,as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer,Torchlight Loan Services, LLC, as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as Certificate Administrator, Wilmington Trust, NationalAssociation, as Trustee, and Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Senior TrustAdvisor with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series2015-C28 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein nototherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuantto Section 11.09 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice Presidentof Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activities of theMaster Servicer during the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31,2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement duringsuch period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2. To the best of my knowledge, based onsuch review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under theAgreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28thday of February 2018.

 

 

/s/Daniel Bober

DanielBober

ExecutiveVice President

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells  Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|------------------------------------|
#### WEAVER v. STATE.

No. 22642.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 1, 1943.

Roy A. Scott, of Corpus Christi, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for aggravated assault, punishment 90 days in jail.

The alleged injured party was a little girl 9 years old. She testified that late in the afternoon appellant called her into his house and was there guilty of indecent familiarity towards her. She went home and immediately reported the occurrence to her mother. Upon the trial appellant denied the use of any familiarity towards the child.

Upon cross-examination of the prosecu-trix it developed that she and her mother were called to the sheriff’s office where appellant was in custody. She testified they were there some two or three hours. Appellant’s counsel asked her if they were talking all that time, and she replied, “He was asking” — (referring to the officer). At this point counsel told the witness that he did not want to know what was said, but the witness continued and testified, “He asked Cecil (appellant) to tell the witness, he told his story, and I told mine, and then Mr. Harney (the sheriff) he finally got the truth out of him. He admitted it right in front of him and the chief of police.” Appellant through his counsel immediately *602complained that the answer was not responsive and requested the court to “strike” the answer, which the court did, by instructing the jury to disregard the answer. It is appellant’s contention that although the court did everything he could to remedy the situation that it was one of those things so obviously harmful it could not be cured by the court’s action. The State, of course, recognized that the conversation in jail was in violation of Art. 727, C.C.P., relating to confessions, and made no effort to introduce it in evidence, but the damaging part of the conversation slipped into the record in the manner indicated without fault of the prosecuting officers. The harmful effect is the same. We have no option but to reverse the judgment.

In defining assault and battery the court embraced certain parts of the statute not applicable. Upon another trial those parts should be omitted. We do not base a reversal upon this error. The trial court’s attention was not called to it by objection to the charge.

For the other matter discussed the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.