alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.4

AGREEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT

Party A: Shijiazhuang Pharmaceutical Group Corporation

Party B: Unigene Laboratories Inc.

Party C:
China Pharmaceutical Group Limited

It is unanimously agreed between Parties A, B and C to assign all rights, responsibilities and obligations of Party A
without reservation to Party C manifested in, including but not limited to, the following documents:



|1. | Confidentiality Agreement dated October 29, 1998
|-- | ------------------------------------------------



|2. | Joint Venture Contract dated June 15, 2000
|-- | ------------------------------------------



|3. | Articles of Association dated June 15, 2000
|-- | -------------------------------------------



|4. | Agreement dated June 9, 2006
|-- | ----------------------------



|5. | Addendum SPG Unigene Joint Venture dated December 16, 2007
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------



|6. | Technology Transfer Agreement dated April 23, 2008
|-- | --------------------------------------------------

Party C agrees
without any reservation to accept such assignment with full legal and business competence as well as full knowledge.

This agreement takes effect
immediately upon signature of the three parties.



Signed by:

Party A: Shijiazhuang Pharmaceutical Group Corporation

Representative:

/s/Cai Dongchen



Party B: Unigene Laboratories Inc.

Representative:

/s/Warren P. Levy



Party C: China Pharmaceutical Group Limited

Representative:

/s/Cai Dongchen



Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province, PRC. April 23, 2008
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 Unigene Laboratories, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Warren
P. Levy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Warren P. Levy     
|Warren P. Levy         
|Chief Executive Officer
|November 9, 2007       

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Unigene
Laboratories, Inc. and will be retained by Unigene Laboratories, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
FERROFLUIDICS CORPORATION'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 26, 1998
AND FOR ITS CONSOLIDATED RESULTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS THEN ENDED AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY STATEMENT ON FORM
10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 26, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-26-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       3,861,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,886,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   374,000
<INVENTORY>                                 10,246,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,574,000
<PP&E>                                      17,859,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              11,361,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              35,790,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,369,000
<BONDS>                                      5,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    36,787,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (13,562,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                35,790,000
<SALES>                                     12,286,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,286,000
<CGS>                                        7,477,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,477,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,911,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             194,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (451,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (454,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                               5,187,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,733,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .76
        

</TABLE>
DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 6, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-23-01233-CV 

JEREMY MICHAEL LIEBBE, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 86th Judicial District Court 

Kaufman County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 19-90393-86-F 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Pedersen, III 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

By motion filed April 17, 2024, appellant informs the Court that the parties have 

settled, and the trial court has entered an agreed order that provides “the exact relief 

[appellant] had sought[.]” Appellant requests we render judgment effectuating the parties’ 

agreement and award him costs of the appeal. 

Because the trial court has rendered judgment pursuant to the parties’ agreement, 

we grant the motion to the extent we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1. 

231233F.P05 

/Robert D. Burns, III/

ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

JEREMY MICHAEL LIEBBE, 

Appellant 

No. 05-23-01233-CV V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 86th Judicial 

District Court, Kaufman County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 19-90393-86-F. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Burns, Justices Molberg and Pedersen, 

III participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

 We ORDER that appellant Jeremy Michael Liebbe recover his costs of this appeal 

from appellee The State of Texas. 

Judgment entered May 6, 2024.
# C_2014384EN.01000201.xml

| 30.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 384/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 384/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

29 October 2014

2014/C 384/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2737 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 137,75 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4445 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,79095 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3294 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2059 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,4675 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,784 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 309,05 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2252 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4245 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8029 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4334 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4192 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,8778 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6035 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6196 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 333,04 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,8447 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7842 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6650 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 405,88 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1653 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,982 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 54,6031 |
| THB | Thai baht | 41,353 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0902 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,1338 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 78,0619 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2737

JPY

Japanese yen

137,75

DKK

Danish krone

7,4445

GBP

Pound sterling

0,79095

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3294

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2059

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,4675

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,784

HUF

Hungarian forint

309,05

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2252

RON

Romanian leu

4,4245

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8029

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4334

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4192

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,8778

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6035

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6196

KRW

South Korean won

1 333,04

ZAR

South African rand

13,8447

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7842

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6650

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 405,88

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1653

PHP

Philippine peso

56,982

RUB

Russian rouble

54,6031

THB

Thai baht

41,353

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0902

MXN

Mexican peso

17,1338

INR

Indian rupee

78,0619

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
POL,...t ~ 

REF ID:A36310~ 

'IHll: COMMID-ERO/FPA~ ----y w--.D.c. 

r 

L 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 

WASHINGTON 

February 6, 1953. 

Henry B. Stauffer, 

Army Security Agency, 

The Pentagon, Washington 25, D.C. 

Dear Sir 

, 

In accordance with the instructions 1n your letter of 

May 5, 19 52 the drawing m the application identified below 

has been corrected The corrected drawing was forwarded to 

the Examiner in charge of this application on Feb. 6, 1953. 

Serial No 549,086 Filing Date Aug. 11, 1944 

Division No 70 

Applicant William F. Friedman 

A charge of $ 1.00has been made against the designated deposit account to cover the cost of this work. 

It is suggested that photographic copies of this drawing 

be ordered so that you can verity the corrections that have been 

made Photographic copies may be obtained from the Patent Office 

at alk cents per sheet. 

30 

Very truly yours, 

T. B Morrow 

Executi:.ve Officer 

Per4 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 07-23-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a
# C_2015091EN.01000101.xml

| 18.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 91/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

17 March 2015

(2015/C 91/01)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0635 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 128,90 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4614 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,71995 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1769 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0660 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,7915 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,183 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 304,12 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1392 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4415 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,7784 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3914 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3585 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,2573 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,4444 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4767 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 197,96 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,1810 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,6468 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6466 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 997,80 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,9311 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 47,470 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 65,7556 |
| THB | Thai baht | 35,017 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,4796 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,4024 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 66,7156 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0635

JPY

Japanese yen

128,90

DKK

Danish krone

7,4614

GBP

Pound sterling

0,71995

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1769

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0660

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,7915

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,183

HUF

Hungarian forint

304,12

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1392

RON

Romanian leu

4,4415

TRY

Turkish lira

2,7784

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3914

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3585

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,2573

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,4444

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4767

KRW

South Korean won

1 197,96

ZAR

South African rand

13,1810

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,6468

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6466

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 997,80

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,9311

PHP

Philippine peso

47,470

RUB

Russian rouble

65,7556

THB

Thai baht

35,017

BRL

Brazilian real

3,4796

MXN

Mexican peso

16,4024

INR

Indian rupee

66,7156

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
Exhibit 31.1  CERTIFICATION  OF   JASON GRENFELL-GARDNER  PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  OF  IGI LABORATORIES, INC.   I, Jason Grenfell-Gardner, President and Chief Executive Officer of IGI Laboratories, Inc., certify that:  1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the three months ended March 31, 2013 of IGI Laboratories, Inc.; and  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.   Date: August 9, 2013


| |     |                                                                                           
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ | Jason Grenfell-Gardner                                                                    
| |     | Jason Grenfell-Gardner
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Ali Tabrizi and Dona Tabrizi,

 Appellants,

v.

City Of Austin; Greg Guernsey, in his 

Official Capacity as Director of Planning 

and Zoning Department, et al.,

 Appellees.

'

'

'

'

'

'

No. 08-16-00209-CV

Appeal from the

53rd District Court

of Travis County, Texas 

(TC# D-1-GN-15-002968)

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Appellants’ unopposed motion to extend the deadline for filing 

a motion to reinstate the appeal. The motion is GRANTED. Appellants are directed to file a 

motion to reinstate the appeal on or before January 24, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of November, 2016.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Hughes, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tracy Durden, Appellant.

[775 NYS2d 248]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Bradley, J.), rendered September 17, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility *(People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). The credible evidence established that defendant used force in an effort to retain the briefcase he had stolen from the victim’s car and was aided by “another person actually present,” as required for a conviction of robbery in the second degree under Penal Law § 160.10 (1).

The court properly denied defendant’s request to charge petit larceny as a lesser included offense of robbery in the second degree, since there was no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed most favorably to defendant, that he committed the lesser offense but not the greater *(see People v Brown,*243 AD2d 363 [1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 889 [1998]). Every witness testified that defendant stmggled with the victim while maintaining possession of the stolen briefcase, and there was no evidence that defendant used force simply to escape.

The court’s supplemental instruction was a meaningful response to the jury’s request for a further explanation of the element of force. Viewing the supplemental instruction together with the court’s main charge, we conclude that the court’s response adequately conveyed the applicable principles of law *(see People v Malloy,*55 NY2d 296, 301-302 [1982], *cert denied*459 US 847 [1982]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Andrias, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.
<PAGE>



                               POWER OF ATTORNEY



         KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby
constitutes and appoints each of Wade H. Nichols III, Robert K. Kretzman,
Lawrence E. Kreider and Joram C. Salig or any of them, each acting alone, his
true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution,
for him and his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, in connection
with the REVLON CONSUMER PRODUCTS CORPORATION (the "Corporation") Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996 (the "Form 10-K") under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including, without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, to sign the Form 10-K in the name and on behalf of
the Corporation or on behalf of the undersigned as a director or officer of the
Corporation, and any amendments to the Form 10-K and any instrument, contract,
document or other writing, of or in connection with the Form 10-K or amendments
thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents
in connection therewith, including this power of attorney, with the Securities
and Exchange Commission and any applicable securities exchange or securities
self-regulatory body, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each
acting alone, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and
thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to
all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying
and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone,
or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed these presents this
18th day of February, 1997.



                                                     /s/ Howard Gittis
                                                     -----------------------
                                                     HOWARD GITTIS
JOSEPH CLARK,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-2599

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 3, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Suzanne Bass, Judge.

Joseph Clark, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, ROWE, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

467 

CA 14-01440 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

VINCENT D. IOCOVOZZI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V ORDER

BONNETTE IOCOVOZZI, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

LORRAINE H. LEWANDROWSKI, HERKIMER, FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

LEVITT & GORDON, NEW HARTFORD (DEAN L. GORDON OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Herkimer County (Erin

P. Gall, J.), entered October 17, 2013. The order granted the motion

of defendant for an award of expert fees and counsel fees.

Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of discontinuance

signed by the attorneys for the parties on March 23, 2015,

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed 

without costs upon stipulation.

Entered: May 1, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0635 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SAUL JAMES DOOLING,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is given an extension of time until August 15, 2024, to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s reply brief. No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 16 2024

07/16/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0635
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**597 KA 10-02122**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SHAUN K. ELLIOTT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LEONARD, CURLEY & WALSH, PLLC, ROME (MICHAEL W. ARTHUR OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LEANNE K. MOSER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOWVILLE, D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, ESQS., SYRACUSE (JOHN A. CIRANDO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Lewis County Court (Charles C. Merrell, J.), rendered July 9, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]), defendant contends that County Court erred in accepting his Alford plea because the record lacked the requisite “strong evidence of actual guilt” to support his plea. That contention survives his waiver of the right to appeal to the extent that it implicates the voluntariness of the plea ( see People v Dash , 74 AD3d 1859, 1860, lv denied 15 NY3d 892; People v Dille , 21 AD3d 1298, 1298, lv denied 5 NY3d 882). By failing to move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction on the ground that the record lacked the requisite “strong evidence of actual guilt,” however, defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review ( see Dille , 21 AD3d at 1298; People v Ebert , 15 AD3d 781, 782), and this case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement ( see People v Lopez , 71 NY2d 662, 666; Dille , 21 AD3d at 1298). In any event, we conclude that “the record establishes that defendant’s Alford plea was the product of a voluntary and rational choice, and the record . . . contains strong evidence of actual guilt” ( Dash , 74 AD3d at 1860 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Entered: June 7, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court