alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1



CONFIDENTIAL



Amendment # 4 to the

Letter of Agreement between

SmithKline Beecham Corporation and

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated


	
1.        	
The purpose of this Amendment # 4 to the Letter of
Agreement effective January 1, 2008 between SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a
GlaxoSmithKline and Quest Diagnostics Incorporated (hereinafter the “LOA”)
is to extend the term referenced in section 2 of the LOA to the earlier of (i)
September 30, 2008, or (ii) the full execution of a new comprehensive Globale
Clinical Trials Agreement.
	 
	
2.        	All other terms and conditions
      of the LOA shall remain in full force and effect.
	 
	
3.        	The parties hereto agree
      to this Amendment #4 to the LOA by their authorized signatures below.





	
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION  	 	
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED
	 	 	 
	/s/ Paula M. Russella	 	/s/ Daniel P. Megronigle
	Paula M. Russella

Sourcing Group Manager	 	Daniel P. Megronigle

Executive Director, Sales & Marketing
	 	 	 
	25
      July 2008	 	21
      July 2008
	Date	 	Date
	   	 	 





Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997             SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          12,363                  29,014
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,740                     357
<ALLOWANCES>                                       685                     652
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,407                  30,905
<PP&E>                                          16,261                  11,538
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,128                  14,983
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  73,668                  79,068
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           65,769                  52,462
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         1,353                   1,802
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,454)                  24,804
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    73,668                  79,068
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               134,192                 101,843
<CGS>                                           98,758                  76,131
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  250,304                 149,354
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,579                 (1,231)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (245)                    (33)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,559                   1,284
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (129,250)                (47,564)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (129,250)                (47,564)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (129,250)               (129,250)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.86)                   (.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.86)                   (.32)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN SUCH
REPORT.
</LEGEND>


<S>                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>     DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>          JUN-30-1999

<CASH>                       13,376,509
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                   351,022
<ALLOWANCES>                       0
<INVENTORY>                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>             13,727,531
<PP&E>                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               13,727,531
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           146,227
<BONDS>                            0
<COMMON>                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<OTHER-SE>                   13,581,304
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 13,727,531
<SALES>                       6,834,631
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              7,024,324
<CGS>                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 3,904,537
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                386,359
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            3,808,686
<INCOME-PRETAX>              (1,075,258)
<INCOME-TAX>                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (970,584)
<DISCONTINUED>               42,724,543
<EXTRAORDINARY>               5,477,607
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                 47,231,566
<EPS-BASIC>                    340.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                    340.50




</TABLE>
# CE2004084EN.01024701.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/247 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/247

---

(2004/C 84 E/0293)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3572/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Lloyds of London

Subject:

What consideration did the Commission give to the letter from the Lloyds Names Association of early 2003; and what comment does the Commission have on the Court finding of July 2003 that Lloyd's was in breach of the obligations in Article 19 of the pertinent Directive?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

(3 March 2004)

The Commission has received a large number of letters and e-mails from the Chairman of the Lloyd's Names Association (LNA). Receipt of four letters sent in January 2003 were acknowledged in writing by the letter of the Internal Market Directorate-General dated 30 January 2003. The Commission considered these comments as part of its assessment when deciding to close (1) the case in October 2003. Many comments related to the past situation at Lloyd's, i.e. before the entry into force of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, or had regard to non-prudential matters.

1

The Honourable Member has not fully specified the Court finding to which he refers. However, in the light of the enquiries made by the Commission and having regard to other correspondence received from the LNA Chairman, the Commission considers that this Court finding could relate to the decision of Lord Justice Thomas in the English Commercial Court case of Sphere Drake v. Sterling Cooke Brown (SCB). On the basis of the information provided by the LNA Chairman, this case relates primarily to matters in an individual Lloyd's syndicate during the period 1992-1996 and was therefore not directly relevant to the Commission's assessment of the compatibility of the new regulatory regime.

---

(1)  Please see Commission Press Release IP/03/1386.

1

---
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
Carver Bancorp, Inc.


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the annual report on Form 10-K
of Carver Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated June 29, 1999,
relating to the consolidated statement of financial position of Carver Bancorp,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of March 31, 1999, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for the
years ended March 31, 1999 and 1998, which report appears in the March 31, 2000
annual report on Form 10-K of Carver Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiaries.




New York, New York
July 14, 2000
- --------------------------

• RE-~2 

SEC~Al'fY INFOAAWION 

USCIB: 5/455 

'gOF S~'f • SE!0T:ffiI'fY BlfomtA'i'ION 

MEMOR,jNDUM FOR THE MEMBERS OF USCIB: 

15 July 1953 

Subject: USCIB Master Requirements List. 

1. The enclosed corresponderice forwarding subject 

List to the Director, National Security Agency, is forw~ed herewith for information and file. 

2. Requests for additional copies of the subject 

List shou+d be forwarded to the Executive Secretary, USCIB. 

Enclosure 

1 copy of CIB # 00087 

dtd 14 July 1953. 

USCIB: 5/455 

ra~~S. N.11.avy 

Executive Secretary, USCIB 

TOP SECRET 

24 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 04-09-2014 pursuant to E. 0. 1352B 
------------------------

• -~Rme·062 . 

SECURlfY l•~FORMA:TION e 

WASHINGTON 25, D. C. 

c;rn # 00087 

14 July 195.3 

MEMORANDUM FOR THlid DIRECTOR. NATI~AL SECURITY AGENCY: 

SUbject: USCID Master Requirements List. 

l. Enclosed herewith are 250 copies (as requesteP.) or the 

USCIB Master Requirements List for your information and guidance. 

Attention is invited to paragraph 5 of the FOREWORD included with. 

subject List. 

2. Subject to several additions which are still under consideration and which will be forwarded when approved, the enclosed 

List was approved ui1anilnously by USCIB as of 3 July 195.3 in 

accordance with the procedure set forth in paragraph 11 or USCIB 

Directive #1. 

3. It is requested that the Director, National Security ~ency advise USCIB concerning the extent to which U. S. COMINT 

resources can be applied effectively to .fulfill th~se requirements 

in the order listed. 

4. The executive agent or the Government for the production 

or COMINT ~"1f'ormation (the Department of Defen~e) has authorized t~ansmission of su,bject List direc~ly to you. 

Enclosure 

250 copies of USCIB Master Requir~ents List. 

(Signed) RUFUS L. TAYLOR 

Captain, u. s. Navy 

Executive Secretary, USCIB 

Enclosure with USCIB 5/455 dated 15 July 1953. 

TOP SECRET
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

MICROS SYSTEMS, INC.

Certification of Principal Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, A.L. Giannopoulos, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of MICROS
Systems, Inc. (Registrant), certify that to the best of my knowledge, based
upon a review of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2003 of the Registrant (the Report):

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and


(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.

/s/ A.L. Giannopoulos
     Name: A.L. Giannopoulos
     Date: November 14, 2003
PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# ADF-Colorado hails Middleton, farewells Brig.Gen. Povak

By StaffNational Reconnaissance Office

                Chantilly, Va.  –              
Aerospace Data Facility Colorado (ADF-C) welcomed new leadership during a change-of-command ceremony held at the ADF-C August 29.

Major General Michael Guetlein, deputy director of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), presided over the ceremony, which transferred the ADF-C reins to Colonel Jacob Middleton from previous Commander, Brigadier General Chris Povak.  

“We are here today to pass the guidon from Brig. Gen. Chris Povak to Col. Jacob Middleton,” said Maj. Gen. Guetlein. “We say farewell to a leader who has contributed so much to the ADF-C over the last three years and welcome a new commander who will ensure our team continues to conduct and support the critical space missions of the National Reconnaissance Office.”  

Change of command ceremonies are a military tradition that represents a formal transfer of authority and responsibility from one commanding officer to another. The passing of the guidon from an outgoing commander to an incoming one ensures the unit and its service members are never without official leadership, demonstrating a continuation of trust. It also signifies an allegiance of service members to their unit’s commander.

 “What an honor to be here with you all today, I am extremely excited about this opportunity.” Col Middleton said. “ADF-C is without a doubt, the best of all the Wings. I am grateful for this incredible opportunity to re-join the men and women that support the very important mission of being the eyes and ears of the Intelligence Community.” 

Col. Jacob Middleton returns to the ADF-C where he previously served as the commander of Space Operations Squadron from 2012 through 2014. Prior to his arrival at ADF-C, Col. Middleton served as the U.S Air Force director of Space Forces, U.S. Air Force Central Command, and vice commander of the 50th Space Wing at Schriever Air Force Base, Colorado.

As the new ADF-C Commander, Col Middleton will be responsible for leading thousands of members of a joint-agency and multi-mission intelligence operations center that conducts collection, analysis, reporting and dissemination of vital intelligence information. The ADF-C provides data to defense, intelligence, and civil agencies supporting the U.S. Government and its allies. 

Outgoing Commander, Brig. Gen. Povak thanked the ADF-C workforce and his family and friends that were in attendance and publicly reflected his time as commander. “Three years have definitely flown by. However, it has been an amazing ride being part of your team. Together, we have accomplished a great deal; from adding new intelligence missions to our site, shoring up the resiliency of our infrastructure, to delivering innovative professional development programs to our workforce.”

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-10381

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE APOLINAR TORRES-LOPEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:00-CR-166-1)

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

November 2, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Jose Apolinar Torres-Lopez (“Torres”)

appeals from a conditional guilty plea for illegal re-entry after

deportation by an aggravated felon. 18 U.S.C. § 1326(a),(b)(2).

Torres contends that the district court erred in denying his motion

to dismiss his indictment, arguing the government issued it after

the limitations period expired. 

We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of the

limitations provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. United States v.

Manges, 110 F.3d 1162, 1169 (5th Cir. 1997)(citation omitted). We
2

review for clear error the court’s fact findings. Anderson v. City

of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985); see United States v.

Meador, 138 F.3d 986, 991 (5th Cir. 1998). Under the clearly

erroneous standard, if the court’s account of the evidence is

plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, we will

not reverse that court even though convinced that had we been

sitting as the trier of fact, we would have weighted the evidence

differently. Id. When there are two permissible views of the

evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly

erroneous. Id. at 573-74. 

The time for prosecuting violation of § 1326 is set out in 18

U.S.C. § 3282, which establishes a five-year limitations period for

bringing non-capital offenses. See United States v. SantanaCastellano, 74 F.3d 593, 597 (5th Cir. 1996). Limitations begin to

run on the completion of the offense. Toussie v. United States,

397 U.S. 112, 115 (1970). Section 1326(a)(2) specifies separate

occasions when the offense of illegal re-entry by a deported alien

is complete: (1) when he illegally enters the United States; (2)

when he attempts to enter the United States illegally; or (3) when

he is found in the United States. Santana-Castellano, 74 F.3d at

597. A previously deported alien is “found in” the United States

when, first, his physical presence is noted and discovered by

immigration authorities and, second, the knowledge of the

illegality of his presence, through the exercise of diligence, can

reasonably be attributed to immigration authorities. Id.
3

Based on the record, the district court did not err, clearly

or otherwise, when it found that Torres failed to establish his

completion of re-entry under the physical-presence prong of § 1326

at any time earlier than the five-year limitations period before

the indictment. The court did not clearly err when it so found.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.
# CE2004084EN.01008403.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/84 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/84

---

(2004/C 84 E/0095)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3686/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Massa

Subject:

In its answer to question E-1109/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Massa had submitted projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that no funding had been granted by 1999.

1

Can the Commission say whether the municipality submitted any projects and obtained and used any funding in the subsequent budget years?

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so, can it supply any information on the outcome?

---

(1)  OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.

1

---
Exhibit 13.1

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18,
United States Code), the undersigned officer of SK Telecom Co., Ltd., a corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of Korea (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the Form 20-F) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Form 20-F fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.



|                      |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Dated: April 27, 2017 |  | /s/ Jung Ho Park                     
|                      |  | Jung Ho Park                         
|                      |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-21130 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus STANISLAV SERGEYICH ZABOLOTSKIY, also known as Stan Zabolotskiy, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CR-861-4

-------------------- December 12, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Stanislav Sergeyich Zabolotskiy has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Zabolotskiy has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the APPEAL IS
DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
#### Roth and others, Executors, Appellants, vs. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Company, Respondent.

*October 7*

October 27, *1914.*

*Suretyship: Fidelity bond: Death of obligee.*

The obligation of the surety upon a bond given to secure the honesty of a person as employee of the obligee terminated at the death of the obligee, except as to prior acts of the employee, although the latter remained in the employ of the executors who continued the business of the obligee.-

*470Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Milwaukee county: J. 0. Ludwig, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

This action was brought by tbe executors of tbe will of one Leo Roth upon a surety bond given by tbe defendant April 22, 1912, as security for tbe honesty of one Kay Hasselbalch, who then entered tbe employ of Roth as a salesman and collector. Roth was a wholesale tobacconist. He died June 8, 1912. Tbe apiiellants were authorized by tbe county court to continue tbe business after Roth’s death. Hasselbalch remained in their employ. In August, 1912, the executors discovered that he had been taking and converting cigars and tobacco and he was discharged. This action was brought to recover for the goods taken and converted after the death of Roth, as well as before. The civil court held that there could be recovered only the value of the goods taken and converted before Roth’s death and entered judgment for such goods, but denied any recovery for the goods taken after that time. • The executors appealed from that judgment to the circuit court, where the judgment of the civil court was affirmed. This appeal is from that affirmance.

*W. 0. Thomas,*for the appellants.

Nor the respondent there was a brief by *Quarles, Spence & Quarles,*attorneys, and *Mackey Wells,*of counsel, and oral argument by *Mr. Wells.*

Wihslow, 0. J.

This judgment must be affirmed. The defendant bound itself to make good to Leo Roth all losses sustained by him by reason of the fraud or dishonesty of Hasselbalch in the discharge of his duties as employee of said Loo Roth. Its promise covered only the period of his employment by Leo Roth. That employment necessarily ceased upon the death of Roth. If the executors afterwards continued the business and employed him therein, that was a new and different employment. The surety might be entirely willing to guarantee the honesty of the employee while *471tbe business was managed by Rotb himself, but not willing to do so while it was managed by the executors. Death of the obligee in a surety bond is generally held to terminate the obligation of a surety, except as to past acts, unless a different intention appears from the instrument itself. *Barker v. Parker,*1 Term Rep. 287; 32 Cyc. 84.

*By the Court.-*— Judgment affirmed.