alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.48


                                    AMENDMENT

         This Amendment (the "Amendment") is made and entered into on June 30,
2001 (the "Amendment Date") by and between Avigen, Inc., a Delaware corporation
having its principal place of business at 1201 Harbor Bay Parkway, Suite 1000,
Alameda, California 94502 ("Avigen"), and Bayer Corporation, an Indiana
corporation having offices at 79 T.W. Alexander Drive, 4101 Research Commons,
P.O. Box 13887, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 ("Bayer")
(hereinafter, each of Avigen and Bayer a "Party" and, collectively, the
"Parties").

         WHEREAS, Avigen and Bayer are parties to that certain Agreement dated
November 17, 2000 relating to the further development and commercialization of a
factor IX gene therapy product being developed for the treatment of hemophilia
type B (the "Agreement); and

         WHEREAS, Section 18.2(f)(iii) contained an incorrect Section reference
which the Parties wish now to correct;

         NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above-stated premises and of the
mutual covenants and agreements set forth below, and intending to be legally
bound by the provisions of this Amendment, the Parties hereby agree as follows:

1. Section 18.2(f)(iii) of the Agreement is hereby amended to delete the phrase
"under this Section 18.2(f)(ii)" and replace it with the phrase "under this
Section 18.2(f)(iii)." The Parties have exchanged, prior to the Amendment Date,
a replacement page for page 51 of the Agreement (containing Section
18.2(f)(iii)) as originally executed, which replacement page illustrates the
amendment made by the foregoing sentence.

2. The remaining provisions of the Agreement shall continue in force unaltered.

3. This Amendment shall be governed by, construed and enforced in accordance
with the laws of the State of New York, other than its conflict of laws
principles directing the application of any law other than that of the State of
New York.

4. This Amendment constitutes the entire agreement among the Parties with
respect to the matters set forth herein, and supersedes all prior agreements and
understandings, both written and oral, among the Parties with respect thereto.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be
executed by their respective officers hereunto duly authorized as of the
Amendment Date.

BAYER CORPORATION                           AVIGEN, INC.


By: /s/ A. J. Nagle                       By: /s/ K Chahine
    -------------------------------           -------------------------------
Name:  Anthony Nagle                      Name:  Kenneth Chahine, Ph.D., J.D.
Title: Vice President                     Title: VP, Business Development
       Biological Products                       and Intellectual Property
#### Tama Water Power Company, Appellant, v. John Ramsdell *et al.,*Appellees.

Promissory note: signature: construction.

*Appeal from Tama District Court.*— Hon. C. A. Bishop, Judge.

Thursday, May 19, 1892.

Action upon three promissory notes. There was a demurrer to the petition, which was sustained, and the petition was dismissed. Plaintiff appeals.

*W. S. Stivers*and J. *W. Willett*for appellant.

*Struble Stiger*for appellees.

Rothrock, J.

I. This cause was submitted to this court upon the arguments made in the ease of *Day v. Ramsdell, ante,*p. 731. Counsel concede that the two cases involve the same questions. There is an abstract in this ease which shows that two of the notes in suit are in the same form as the notes in the other case. The note for six hundred and fifty-nine dollars and thirty-three cents, dated March 30, 1885, is not in the same form. The word “we” is not in that note. So that it appears to be an undertaking that the Tama Water Power Company would pay the amount *748named in the note. This variance may be an error in the abstract. However that may he, the defendants will not he prejudiced in the further progress of this ease.

II. There is another difference in the notes, in this: There was the impression of a seal upon each of the notes in this ease, with the words, “Tama Paper Co., Tama City, Iowa,” thereon. In the absence of an averment in the petition that the Tama Paper Company was a corporation having a seal, we do not think that the impression of said words upon the notes would control the rights of the parties. What effect this would have, if it should he shown that the Tama Paper Company was a corporation, we do not determine.

The judgment of the district court is reversed.

Kinne, J., having been of counsel, took no part in the decision of this case. *

OPINION ON REHEARING.

Tuesday, January 23, 1894.

Robinson, J.

A rehearing was granted in this ease, and in the case of *Day v. Ramsdell,*57 N. W. Rep. 630, (decided during the present term of court), at the same time. What we have said in the opinion on rehearing in that ease is applicable to this, and need' not he repeated. The impression of the official seal of the Tama Paper Company on the notes involved in this action does not show that the notes are not the personal obligations of the defendants, in view of the averments of the petition that they made the notes to the plaintiff. In the first division of the former opinion, in refering to the form of one of the notes in suit, we inadvertently used the name of the plaintiff. As is evident, we intended to designate the Tama Paper Company. We conclude that our former opinion should he adhered to, and the judment of the district court is therefore REVERSED.

Granger, C. J.

I adhere to the views expressed in the dissenting opinion in *Matthews v. Mattress Co.,*87 Iowa, 246.

Kinne, J., took no part in the determination of this causo.
14910-13-PJ

,;nIRllF.;<('>S

msGs,".UllI.

,'1{\)(Yl-7 .mC~

RIN 2l20-AA64

Federal Aviation Administration

DEPARTMENT OF TRAJ'ISPORTA nON

14CFR Part 39 )AU

I 0'j,0

_ ID?cket No. FAA-2009-~?!1; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-054-An; Amendmcn .OUTINGSYMUO'. A

lp'2-X\ltv!lt'- 1'-OIQ05 03 - I-

\ 39-~;"'""AD 2009-06-0;, RIJ INI1"A',I,"P

, - ,/,' ..j I

r' .lfJ. 't-1----

(lATI'""· .

, J ,

2-'/2'11/

Ain"'orlhiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-1All (eL-600), ><o,IlINOS"",,,,,l.

--IcI

CL-600-2AI2 (CL-601), and CL-600-2B 16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604)

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation

(DOT),

ACTION: Final rule.

rrnoG~17

srrW"l..s>G /

m

-U

SUl\11\'IARY: We are revismg an existing airworthiness directive (AD) for the products lNITl/U,,<;I$lG

listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information ~""",-,----

(MeAl) originated by an aVIation authority of another country to identify and correct an 'IOlI'rINO S\'M"(,~

unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes the unsafe condition as:

INITIAJ.Si~r"

The unsafe condition is ami-ice system air leakage with a possible adverse effect on the

Cracking of the wing anli~ice piccolo ducts could result in air leakage, with

an adverse effect on the anti~ice air distribution pattern and a possible

unannunciated insufficient heat condition. * * *

(SJeveral cases of wing anti-ice piccolo duct failure reported on

CL-600-28 19 (CRJ) aircraft. Although there have been no failures reported

on Challenger aircraft, similar ducts are installed on the * * * [other]

Challenger models.

* * * * * * *

,c'E

0"""" S""IlOI.

~"''''MIG

,.

""' ••.,... SY>'llOt

.',"~u.'SIl:

DM~
Order entered September 17, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00326-CR

RAYNALDO MARTINEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. MA17-24740-A

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s September 16, 2019 third motion for extension of time to 

file appellant’s brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s brief filed on or before 

October 16, 2019. If appellant’s brief is not filed by October 16, 2019, this appeal may be 

abated for the trial court to make findings in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 38.8.

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE 

JUSTICE
*October 16, 1945.*

#### Landwehr and wife, Respondents, vs. Treml and another, Appellants.

For the appellants: *Benton, Bosser, Becker & Parnell*of Appleton.

For the respondents: *Michael Burns*of Seymour, attorney, and *Bradford & Derber*of Appleton of counsel.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
# Uradni list C 178/2016

| | ISSN 1977-1045 |
| --- | --- |
| Uradni list
  Evropske unije | C 178 |
| | |
| Slovenska izdaja | Informacije in objave | Zvezek 5918. maj 2016 |

ISSN 1977-1045

Uradni list

Evropske unije

C 178

Slovenska izdaja

Informacije in objave

Zvezek 5918. maj 2016

---

| Obvestilo št. | Vsebina | Stran |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Popravki |
| 2016/C 178/01 | Popravek Stališča Sveta (EU) št. 1/2016 v prvi obravnavi z namenom sprejetja uredbe Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o Agenciji Evropske unije za železnice in razveljavitvi Uredbe (ES) št. 881/2004 – Sprejeto s strani Sveta 10. decembra 2015( UL C 56, 12.2.2016 ) | 1 |

Obvestilo št.

Vsebina

Stran

Popravki

2016/C 178/01

Popravek Stališča Sveta (EU) št. 1/2016 v prvi obravnavi z namenom sprejetja uredbe Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o Agenciji Evropske unije za železnice in razveljavitvi Uredbe (ES) št. 881/2004 – Sprejeto s strani Sveta 10. decembra 2015( UL C 56, 12.2.2016 )

( UL C 56, 12.2.2016 )

1

---

| SL | |
| --- | --- |

SL

---

Popravki

| 18.5.2016 | SL | Uradni list Evropske unije | C 178/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.5.2016

SL

Uradni list Evropske unije

C 178/1

---

Popravek Stališča Sveta (EU) št. 1/2016 v prvi obravnavi z namenom sprejetja uredbe Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o Agenciji Evropske unije za železnice in razveljavitvi Uredbe (ES) št. 881/2004 – Sprejeto s strani Sveta 10. decembra 2015

(
  Uradni list Evropske unije C 56 z dne 12. februarja 2016
  )

(2016/C 178/01)

Stran 39, Člen 65, odstavek 10:

besedilo:

„10.   Evropski parlament na priporočilo Sveta, ki odloča s kvalificirano večino, do 30. aprila v letu N + 2 podeli razrešnico izvršnemu direktorju v zvezi z izvajanjem proračuna za leto N.“

se glasi:

„10.   Evropski parlament na priporočilo Sveta, ki odloča s kvalificirano večino, do 15. maja v letu N + 2 podeli razrešnico izvršnemu direktorju v zvezi z izvajanjem proračuna za leto N.“.

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 105 (Tuesday, June 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 31449]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13389]

[[Page 31449]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Fourth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 230, Airborne Weather 
Detection Systems Committee

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Fourth Meeting Airborne Weather Detection Systems Committee.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the 
fourth meeting of the Airborne Weather Detection Systems Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held June 16-18, 2015 (from 9:00 a.m.-5:00 
p.m. on June 16-17 and 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. on June 18).

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Boeing Company, 635 Park Ave N 
Renton, WA 98057 Building #10-18.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 224. The agenda will 
include the following:

June 16

 Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks
 Agenda Overview
 Meeting #3 Minutes approval
 Discussion of activities with EUROCAE WG-95
 Review of final findings from DO-220 draft

June 17

 Review of issues being addressed in DO-213
 Review of findings from DO-213 draft

June 18

 Review of findings from DO-213 draft
 Action Item Review
 Other Actions
 FRAC Progress
 Date and Place of Next Meetings
 Adjourn
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 28, 2015.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management Analyst, NextGen, Program Oversight and Administration, 
Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-13389 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
# Az Európai Unió C 178/2016

| | ISSN 1977-0979 |
| --- | --- |
| Az Európai Unió
  Hivatalos Lapja | C 178 |
| | |
| Magyar nyelvű kiadás | Tájékoztatások és közlemények | 59. évfolyam2016. május 18. |

ISSN 1977-0979

Az Európai Unió

Hivatalos Lapja

C 178

Magyar nyelvű kiadás

Tájékoztatások és közlemények

59. évfolyam2016. május 18.

---

| Közleményszám | Tartalom | Oldal |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Helyesbítések |
| 2016/C 178/01 | Helyesbítés az Európai Vasúti Ügynökségről és a 881/2004/EK rendelet hatályon kívül helyezéséről szóló európai parlamenti és tanácsi rendelet elfogadására tekintettel első olvasatban elfogadott (EU) 1/2016 tanácsi állásponthoz – A Tanács által 2015. december 10-én elfogadva ( HL C 56., 2016.2.12. ) | 1 |

Közleményszám

Tartalom

Oldal

Helyesbítések

2016/C 178/01

Helyesbítés az Európai Vasúti Ügynökségről és a 881/2004/EK rendelet hatályon kívül helyezéséről szóló európai parlamenti és tanácsi rendelet elfogadására tekintettel első olvasatban elfogadott (EU) 1/2016 tanácsi állásponthoz – A Tanács által 2015. december 10-én elfogadva ( HL C 56., 2016.2.12. )

( HL C 56., 2016.2.12. )

1

---

| HU | |
| --- | --- |

HU

---

Helyesbítések

| 18.5.2016 | HU | Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja | C 178/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.5.2016

HU

Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja

C 178/1

---

Helyesbítés az Európai Vasúti Ügynökségről és a 881/2004/EK rendelet hatályon kívül helyezéséről szóló európai parlamenti és tanácsi rendelet elfogadására tekintettel első olvasatban elfogadott (EU) 1/2016 tanácsi állásponthoz – A Tanács által 2015. december 10-én elfogadva

(
  Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja C 56., 2016. február 12.
  )

(2016/C 178/01)

A 39. oldalon, a 65. cikk (10) bekezdésében:

a következő szövegrész:

„(10)   Az Európai Parlament a minősített többséggel eljáró Tanács ajánlása alapján az n + 2. év április 30-a előtt mentesítést ad az ügyvezető igazgatónak az n. évre vonatkozó költségvetés végrehajtása tekintetében.”

helyesen:

„(10)   Az Európai Parlament a minősített többséggel eljáró Tanács ajánlása alapján az n + 2. év május 15-e előtt mentesítést ad az ügyvezető igazgatónak az n. évre vonatkozó költségvetés végrehajtása tekintetében.”

---
Exhibit 10.1



SECOND AMENDMENT TO NOTE





This Second Amendment to the 10% Secured Subordinated Promissory Note, dated as of this 30th day of June, 2010 by and between Richard Parrillo (the "Payee"),  and Hudson Technologies, Inc. (the "Maker"), and Hudson Technologies Company ("Company").

WITNESSETH

WHEREAS, on or about March 26, 2009, the Maker  borrowed the sum of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) from the Payee and executed and delivered to the Payee a 10% Secured Subordinated Promissory Note (the "Note") in the sum of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) dated March 26, 2009 to be paid on September 30, 2009 (the "Maturity Date"); and

WHEREAS, as security for the obligations of the Maker, Company executed a General Security Agreement, dated March 26, 2009; and

WHEREAS, by First Amendment to Note, dated as of September 30, 2009, the Payee and the Maker agreed to extend the Maturity Date under the Note for an additional nine (9) months from October 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010; and

WHEREAS, the Payee and the Maker have agreed to further extend the Maturity Date under the Note for an additional ninety (90) days months from July 1, 2010 to September 30, 2010.

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

1. The Maturity Date under the Note is hereby extended to September 30, 2010 at which time the entire principal balance due on the Note plus any unpaid but accrued interest and any fees and costs due the Payee shall be due and payable.

2. Except and to the extent modified hereby, the Note shall remain in full force and effect, without modification or change.

3. Payee, Maker and Company hereby confirm and agree that the General Security Agreement shall continue to apply and shall remain in full force and effect until all sums due or to become due to the Payee under the Note, including, without limitation, the principal, all accrued interest thereon, penalties, costs, fees and late charges, if any, shall be indefeasibly paid by Maker to the Payee.

4. This Amendment may not be modified or terminated orally and shall be binding and inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors and assigns of the Payee and Maker.

5. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York.

6.  This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which, when taken together, shall be deemed to constitute one and the same instrument.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby have duly executed this Amendment as of the day and year first written above.



|                    |  | Hudson Technologies, Inc.  
|------------------- |  | ---------------------------
|                    |  |                            
|/s/Richard Parrillo |  | By: /s/ Kevin J. Zugibe    
|Richard Parrillo    |  |                            
|                    |  |                            
|                    |  | Hudson Technologies Company
|                    |  |                            
|                    |  | By: /s/ Kevin J. Zugibe
-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 25, 2015

v No. 321058 Calhoun Circuit Court ABDIAS ANTOINE, LC No. 2011-003714-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: R ONAYNE K RAUSE , P.J., and M URPHY and S ERVITTO , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

. Defendant, Abdias Antoine, appe als as of right his sentence fo llowing a jury conviction for assault with intent to murder, MCL 750.83. The trial court initially sentenced defendant to 23 years, 9 months to 40 years’ imprisonment, but reduced his s entence to 16 to 40 years’ imprisonment following this C ourt’s remand for resentencing. 1 We affirm.

On appeal, defendant concedes that the sentence imposed at res entencing was within the guidelines range but claims that the sentence is nevertheless d isproportionate. However, defendant’s claim is unreviewable because this Court may not co nsider challenges to a sentence based exclusively on proportionality if the minimum sentence fa lls within the correctly calculated recommended minimum sentence range under the legisla tive guidelines. People v Pratt , 254 Mich App 425, 429-430; 656 NW2d 866 (2002).

Before January 1, 1999, sentencing decisions fell within the s cope of discretionary judicial action. See People v Milbourn , 435 Mich 630, 634; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). A sentencing court abused its discretion when it prescribed a sentence dispr oportionate to the offense and the offender. Id. at 636. Defendant relies on Milbourn ’s reasoning in challenging the proportionality of his sentence. However, following enactment of the legislative sentencing guidelines, MCL 777.1 et seq . (which apply to enumerated felonies committed on or after January 1, 1999), Michigan’s sentencing guidelines now direct t hat this Court “shall affirm and shall not remand for resentencing” any sentence within the appr opriate guidelines sentence range

1 People v Antoine , unpublished opinion per curiam o f the Court of Appeals, issue d August 15, 2013 (Docket No. 310544).-2- “absent an error in scoring the sentencing guidelines or inaccu rate information relied upon in determining the defendant’s sen tence.” MCL 769.34(10); see als o People v Kimble , 470 Mich 305, 310-311; 684 NW2d 669 (2004). T his statutory change rende red Milbourn review unavailable. People v Armisted , 295 Mich App 32, 51-52; 811 NW2d 47 (2011).

Defendant’s minimum sentence of 16 years (192 months) falls wi thin his correctly calculated minimum legislative guidelines range of 135 to 225 m onths. MCL 777.62. Defendant asserts neither a scoring error nor inaccurate inform ation, and we must therefore affirm his sentence under MCL 769.34(10). Kimble , 470 Mich at 310-311.

Affirmed.

/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause /s/ William B. Murphy /s/ Deborah A. Servitto
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Metavante Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Frank R. Martire, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 results of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/S/    FRANK R.
MARTIRE
|Frank R. Martire       
|Chief Executive Officer
|                       
|May 12, 2008           

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.