alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w26






Exhibit 10.26









	 	 	 	 	 

	2000 GALLOPING HILL ROAD

	 	
	 	KENILWORTH, N.J. 07033






TELEPHONE: (908) 298-4000




June 29, 2010




Steven D. Rubin 

Executive Vice President 
OPKO Health, Inc. 

4400 Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33137





			
		 	RE: The October 12, 2009 Asset Purchase Agreement between Schering Corporation

(“Schering”) and OPKO Health, Inc. (“OPKO”) (the “Agreement”)





Dear Mr. Rubin:




     This letter confirms our understanding with respect to the schedule for the payment of the
Twenty-Five Million Dollars ($25,000,000) that may become due and payable under Paragraph 2.7.2(b)
of the Agreement. The schedule for payments made under Section 2.7.2(b) of the Agreement shall be
as follows:



     (i) Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) upon NDA approval for an NK-1 Compound, and 


     (ii) Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) each year thereafter for the next four (4) years on
the anniversary date of such NDA approval.



     Please acknowledge your understanding of the payment schedule for Paragraph 2.7.2(b) by having
this letter, and the enclosed duplicate copy, signed on behalf of OPKO where indicated and return
one fully signed version to your legal contact for Schering.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Very truly yours.

 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Bruce N. Kuhlik

Executive Vice President

and General Counsel 	 
	 



ACKNOWLEDGED:




OPKO HEALTH, INC.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	

By:

	 	

/s/ Steven D. Rubin	 	Approved for Signature

OPKO Legal Dept.	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Title:

	 	EVP
	 	By:
	 	/s/ Kate Inman
 

	 	 
	Date:

	 	7-7-2010
	 	Date:
	 	7/7/2010
**Exhibit 13.2****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 report of Claxson Interactive Group Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 20-F as furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, José Antonio Ituarte, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 ofthe 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/ José Antonio Ituarte       Name: José Antonio Ituarte Title:    Chief Executive OfficerDated: July 15, 2005
**Exhibit
      13.2**




**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 Prana Biotechnology Limited (the “Company”)
      on Form 20-F for the period ending June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard Revelins,
      Chief Financial 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:




(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.






/s/
      Richard
      Revelins *


Richard
      Revelins


Chief
      Financial Officer




September
      29, 2006




*  The
      originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
      Company’s offices and will be made available for inspection upon
      request.
#### In re BEST PACK SEAFOOD, INC., Debtor. Stuart PENNELS, Trustee, Plaintiff, v. Donald BARNES Oxford Bank and Trust, Defendants.

Bankruptcy No. 281-00181.

Adv. No. 281-0277.

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maine.

Dec. 19, 1984.

Daniel Amory, Drummond, Woodsum & Plimpton, Portland, Me., for plaintiff.

Thomas Leahy, Monaghan, Leahy, Ho-chadel & Libby, Portland, Me., for defendant Oxford Bank.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FREDERICK A. JOHNSON, Bankruptcy Judge.

In this proceeding the trustee seeks to avoid and recover as fraudulent transfers, certain substantial payments made by defendant Barnes to defendant Oxford Bank and Trust. The trustee alleges that Barnes, sole stockholder and director of the debtor, caused funds of the debtor to be paid Oxford in satisfaction of obligations of Barnes, Barnes’ wife and another entity controlled by Barnes. In a separate count the trustee seeks to avoid and recover from Oxford certain preferential transfers. Both defendants deny the allegations and demand a jury trial.

Are the defendants entitled to a jury trial in a proceeding to avoid and recover preferential or fraudulent transfers? The court concludes that they are not.

This proceeding is now controlled by 28 U.S.C. § 157, enacted by the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984, Pub.L. 98-353, which became effective on July 10, 1984.1

Section 157(b)(2) characterizes proceedings to determine, avoid or recover preferences and fraudulent conveyances as “core proceedings.” Core proceedings are not specifically defined in the 1984 Act. However, Congress has apparently determined that core proceedings are proceedings dealing with “the restructuring of debtor-creditor relations, which is at the core of the federal bankruptcy power....” *Northern Pipeline v. Marathon Pipe Line,*458 U.S. 50, 71,102 S.Ct. 2858, 2871, 73 L.Ed.2d 598, 615.

*195Bankruptcy judges may hear and determine all core proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11, referred to them and enter appropriate orders and judgments. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).2 Clearly, Congress intended that these core proceedings be heard by the court without a jury. The added delay and expense of trial by jury of these core proceedings would frustrate the expeditious and effective administration of bankruptcy cases. Congress may accommodate the right to trial by jury to the need for expeditious proceedings. *Whitlock v. Hause,*694 F.2d 861 (1st Cir.1982) (citing *Katchen v. Landy,*382 U.S. 323, 86 S.Ct. 467, 15 L.Ed.2d 391).

An appropriate order will be entered.

1

. 28 U.S.C. § 1411, which purports to deal with jury trials, does not apply to proceedings such as this, which were pending on the date of enactment. Pub.L. 98-353, Section 122(b).

2

. By order of the U.S. District Court, District of Maine, dated July 11, 1984, all cases under title 11 and all civil proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to cases under title 11 were referred to the bankruptcy judges of this district.
Statement of the Air and Radiation Management Administration 

Department of the Environment 

for the Public Hearing Relating to Proposed Amendments 

to Regulation .13 Drum and Pail Coating under 

COMAR 26.11.19 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes 

held on February 15, 2011 Baltimore, MD 

My name is Husain Waheed. I am a Senior Regulatory and Compliance Engineer with 

the Regulation Development Division of the Air and Radiation Management Administration, 

Department of the Environment. 

This public hearing is being held pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR Section 51.102 

and Sections 2-301 et.seq. of the Environment Article, Annotated Code of Maryland. It is also 

being held in conformance with the State Administrative Procedures Act under the State 

Government Article, beginning at Section 10-101. 

Notice of this hearing appeared in the: 

Maryland Register on January 14, 2011; 

MDE's website from January 11, 2011 through February 16, 2011; 

Baltimore Sun on January 14, 2011; 

Washington Post on January 13, 2011; and the 

St. Mary’s Enterprise on January 14, 2011. 

Copies of these notices were submitted for the record. 

Copies of the proposed action and supporting documents were submitted for review to 

the State Clearinghouse and are also submitted at this time into the hearing record. Copies were 

also made available for public inspection at the Air and Radiation Management Administration 

offices in Baltimore, Cumberland, and Salisbury, and at all local health departments or local air 

quality control offices. 

 The purpose of today's hearing is to give the public an opportunity to comment on the 

proposed amendments to Regulation .13 under COMAR 26.11.19.

Summary 

 COMAR 26.11.19.13 amendments are proposed to set VOC coating standards for 

exterior and interior coatings for new and reconditioned drums and pails in the range of 2.8 to 

4.2 lbs/gal and require higher efficiency application methods. 

Maryland’s State Implementation Plan (SIP)

These amendments will be submitted to the EPA for approval as part of the SIP. 

Consideration of Comments 

The Department will consider all comments before making a decision to adopt these 

1 
amendments. 

2
NovaGold Resources Inc.: Exhibit 4.16 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






CONSENT OF RUSS WHITE 

In connection with NovaGold Resources Inc.’s take-over bid
circular dated January 18, 2011 (the “Offer and Circular”) and registration
statement on Form F-8 originally dated January 18, 2011, and any amendments
thereto and any registration statements filed pursuant to Rule 429 under the
United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and any documents incorporated
by reference therein (the “Registration Statement”), I, Russ White, hereby
consent to references to my name and to my involvement in the preparation of a
technical report entitled “NI 43-101 Technical Report on Resources, Ambler
Project, Arctic Deposit” dated February 12, 2008 with an effective date of
January 31, 2008 (the “Technical Report”) in the Registration Statement and the
Offer and Circular, and to the inclusion and incorporation by reference of
information derived from the Technical Report in the Registration Statement and
the Offer and Circular. 

DATED: January 18, 2011 

/s/ Russell White 
Name: Russ White
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS  PURSUANT  TO SECTION  906 OF THE  SARBANES-OXLEY  ACT OF
2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of TX Holdings, Inc., a Georgia corporation
(the "Company"),  on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2007, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report"),  Mark S. Neuhaus,
former Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify,  pursuant to
ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  ss.  1350),  that to his
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.


/s/ Mark S. Neuhaus
-------------------------
Mark S. Neuhaus
Former Chief Executive Officer
December 28, 2007

[A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to TX  Holdings,  Inc.  and will be retained by TX  Holdings,  Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]


                                       78
#### In the Matter of C.L.B. Check Cashing, Inc., Appellant, v Elizabeth McCaul, as Superintendent of Banks of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

[774 NYS2d 712]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York State Banking Department, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated August 12, 2002, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the petitioner, a check cashing business, lacked standing to challenge the issuance of a license to the respondent Coqui Check Cashing Corp. (hereinafter Coqui), its competitor. Competitive injury, in and of itself, does not confer standing upon a petitioner unless such injury falls within the zone of interest of the controlling statute *(see Matter of Dairylea Coop. v Walkley,*38 NY2d 6, 9-12 [1975]; *Troy Ambulance Serv. v New York State Dept. of Health,*260 AD2d 715, 716 [1999]; *Matter of Subway Check Cashing Serv. v Considine,*158 AD2d 406 [1990]; *New York Hearing Aid Socy. v Children’s Hosp. & Rehabilitation Ctr. of Utica,*91 AD2d 333, *594334 [1983]; *Matter of Our Lady of Good Counsel R.C. Church & School v Ball,*45 AD2d 66, 70, [1974], *affd*38 NY2d 780 [1975]; *Nostrand Check Cashing Co. v Clark,*27 Misc 2d 799, 800 [1960], *affd*13 AD2d 922 [1961]). Under Banking Law § 369, no license shall be issued to an applicant for a location which is “closer than one thousand five hundred eighty-four feet (three-tenths of a mile) from an existing licensee.” Since the petitioner is located more than three tenths of a mile from the proposed location of Coqui, its alleged injury did not fall within the zone of interest of the statute. Furthermore, there is a rational basis for the determination of the New York State Banking Department that the issuance of a license to Coqui to permit the cashing of checks, would “promote the convenience and advantage of the area” *(see*Banking Law § 369).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Luciano, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.
ex4_1.htm


Exhibit 4.1


 





 




  





  











  






 



PENNY AUCTION SOLUTIONS, INC.


CORPORATE STOCK TRANSFER, INC.


TRANSFER FEE: AS REQUIRED








	
The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations:


	  	  	  	  
	
TEN COM -

	
as tenants in common

	
UNIF GIFT MIN ACT -

	
Custodian


	
TEN ENT -

	
as tenants by the entireties

	  	
(Cust)

	
(Minor)


	
JT TEN-

	
as joint tenants with right

	  	
under Uniform Gifts to Minors


	  	
of survivorship and not as

	  	  
	  	
tenants in common

	  	  






	  	  	  	
Act

	  
	  	  	  	
(State)













	
Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.


	  





 



	
   PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER   

	  
	
IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE

	  
	
  


  

	  















FOR VALUE RECEIVED,                                                                                                                                                                                                             hereby sell, assign and transfer unto








	  
	
PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE


	
  


 


	
  


 


	
  


 


	  	
 


 Shares


	
of the Common Stock represented by the within Certificate and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint













	  	
 Attorney to transfer


	
the said stock on the books of the within-named Corporation, with full power of substitution in the premises.


	  










Dated:                                        20                    ,










	  	
Signature: X 

	  
	
Signature(s) Guaranteed:

	  	  
	  	
Signature: X 

	  










THE SIGNATURE(S) TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME(S) AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER. THE SIGNATURE(S) SHOULD BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (Banks, Stockbrokers, Savings and Loan Associations and Credit Unions) WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM, PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
NO. 29598

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

In the Matter of the Tax Appeal of 

REEL HOOKER SPORTFISHING, INC., Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF HAWAI#I, DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION,

Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.

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

EXACT GAME FISHING, INC., Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF HAWAI#I, DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION,

Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.

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

FINEST KIND, INC., Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF HAWAI#I, DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION,

Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CASE NOS. 07-0072, 07-0073, AND 07-0074)

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

29598

19-OCT-2010

10:16 AM
ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Duffy, J., for the court )

1

Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants Reel Hooker

Sportfishing, Inc., Exact Game Fishing, Inc., and Finest Kind,

Inc.’s application for writ of certiorari, filed on September 7,

2010, is hereby rejected. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 19, 2010.

FOR THE COURT:

/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.

 

Associate Justice

Dennis Niles and

Elizabeth E. Bray

for petitioners/

plaintiffs-appellants 

on the application

Hugh R. Jones and

Damien A. Elefante,

Deputy Attorneys General,

for respondent/defendantappellee on the response

Considered by: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ. and

1

Circuit Judge Kim, assigned by reason of vacancy.

2
No. 90-6230.

#### Martin *v.*Townsend et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Executive Order 12866 

and 

Congressional Review Requirements 

Rulemaking Document Title: ^/^Q^\D•j>cn'^^^4^^^ tJA-tt*^ ^ ^/ S ^ ^ Oj>A^\&^ I n 

^ RIN: PIOS-AD H (^ 

With respect to the attached rulemaking document(s): 

1. E.0.12866: The requirements of section 6(a)(3)(E) of E.O. 12866 have been met in accordance with the 

following [initial appropriate line]: 

The rulemaking document(s) was not reviewed by the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). 

y \ No substantive changes were made to the document(s) after it was submitted to OIRA. 

The required information is attached. 

2. Congressional Review: The requirements of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

for the submission of final rules to Congress and GAO (§801) have been met in accordance with the 

following [initial appropriate line]: 

X This document is not a final rule. 

This document is not a rule under (§ 804). 

The document has been submitted to C-50 for transmission to Congress and GAO. 

/f^^^-^^^^^? ^ 

Signature 

Name , 

D^p^+^ A^iv>^/^ Oen^rf^^ CoM^>e / 

Title/Office 

0 ^ 1 \(>ln 

Dale 

05/26/2011
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2168

IRIS SAPP GANTT,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

COLVIN THOMAS MORGAN, a/k/a Tom Morgan, a/k/a C. T. Morgan, 

a/k/a Colvin T. Morgan; THURMO MEDICAL SLEEP PRODUCTS, INC.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, 

District Judge. (1:12-cv-01123-TDS-JLW)

Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 25, 2014

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Iris Sapp Gantt, Appellant Pro Se. John F. Bloss, HIGGINS 

BENJAMIN PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina; Daniel Charles Nash, 

MORGAN, HERRING, MORGAN, GREEN & ROSENBLUTT, LLC, High Point, 

North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Iris Sapp Gantt, a pro se civil litigant, appeals the 

district court’s order dismissing Gantt’s civil action for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. See Durden v. United States, 736 F.3d 

296, 300 (4th Cir. 2013) (stating that dismissals for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction are reviewed de novo). Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See

Gantt v. Morgan, No. 1:12-cv-01123-TDS-JLW (M.D.N.C. Sept. 4, 

2013). 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.

AFFIRMED
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6850** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. LUTHER J. MCLOYD , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Greenville
. Terrence W. Boyle , District Judge. ( 4:94

- cr - 00070

- BO

- 16 )

Submitted : September 24, 2013 Decided: September 27, 2013

Before NIEMEYER and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Luther J. McLoyd, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Fesak, Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, Robert J. Higdon, Jr., Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTO RNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Luther J. McLoyd appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction in his sentence b ased on Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2011). We have reviewed the record and hold the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the relief McLoyd sought
. See United States v. Munn , 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir. 2010) (stating standard of review)
. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of McLoyd’s § 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. McLoyd , No. 4:94

– cr – 00070

– BO

- 16 (E.D.N.C. filed May 2, 2013 & entered May 3, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts an d legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
DENY and Opinion Filed January 7, 2022 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00018-CV 

IN RE DEANNE CLAIRE, Relator 

Original Proceeding from Dallas County, Texas 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Schenck, Reichek, and Carlyle 

Opinion by Justice Schenck 

In this original proceeding, relator asks this Court to direct the chair of the 

Dallas County Democratic Party to reinstate relator’s name on the Democratic 

primary election ballot as a judicial candidate for the 330th Judicial District. 

The Texas election code grants the Court limited jurisdiction to consider a 

petition for writ of mandamus to “compel the performance of any duty imposed by 

law in connection with the holding of an election . . . regardless of whether the person 

responsible for performing the duty is a public officer.” TEX. ELEC.CODE § 273.061. 

 
 –2– 

Because we conclude that relator has failed to show her entitlement to the relief 

requested, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 

220018F.P05 

/David J. Schenck/

DAVID J. SCHENCK 

JUSTICE
ACCEPTED 12-15-00102-CR TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS 6/3/2015 1:29:51 PM CATHY LUSK CLERK