alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.16


 





 


	 	5th Floor
	 	9 Bond Court
	 	Leeds
	 	LS1 2JZ


 





	Richard
    Avison	 	 
	7
    Huyton Avenue	 	 
	St
    Helens	 	 
	Merseyside	 	 
	WA10
    6LU	 	19th
    July 2021


 


LETTER
OF VARIATION No. 2


 


Dear
Richard,


 


Re:
SERVICE AGREEMENT DATED 1st November 2017 (“AGREEMENT”)


 


We
are pleased to make the following amendments to the above agreement effective 1st July 2021.


 


This
letter confirms that the following 2 (two) sections of the Agreement are amended in accordance with Section 26 of the Agreement as follows:


 


Section
4: Duties: is amended


 


And
replaced with


 


Section
4: Duties


 


	4.1
    	The
    Employee shall serve the Company as Vice President (VP) of Finance.


 


Section
7: Salary: is amended


 


And
replaced with


 


Section
7: Salary:


 


	7.1	The
    Employee shall be paid a salary of £134,200 per annum.


 


registered
in England and Wales (registered number 08840579).



 




    	 



    	 



    

 





 


	 	5th Floor
	 	9 Bond Court
	 	Leeds
	 	LS1 2JZ


 


All
other sub-sections within Section 7 in the Agreement remain unchanged. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full
force and effect.


 


	For
    and on behalf of 4D PHARMA PLC
	 	 	 	 	 
	Signed:		 	Date:	
	 	 	 	 	 
	Name:
    		 	Title:	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	For
    and on behalf of RICHARD AVISON
	 	 	 	 	 
	Signed:		 	Date:	
	 	 	 	 	 
	Name:
    	 	 	Title:	 


 


registered
in England and Wales (registered number 08840579).
**Exhibit 32.1**I, Merrill A. Miller, Jr., Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of National OilwellVarco, Inc., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:     (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the “PeriodicReport”) which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and     (2) information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of National Oilwell Varco, Inc.     Date: February 26, 2007 *By: /s/ Merrill A. Miller,Jr.* Merrill A. Miller, Jr.    Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2016017EN.01000202.xml

| 19.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 17/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 17/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7823 — Acciona/Nordex)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 17/04)

On 12 January 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7823. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7823. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United St ates District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-2891

___________ Robert L. Schulz, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. United States; Internal Revenue * Service, Terry Cox, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: September 4, 2007 Filed: September 13, 2007

___________ Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Robert Schulz appeals the district court’s 1 order declining to quash a third-party summons issued to PayPal by the Intern al Revenue Service (IRS). We affirm.
The district court determined that the IRS issued the summons within its authority under 26 U.S.C. § 7602, as inte rpreted in United States v. Powell , 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964). According to Powell , to obtain enforcemen t of summons, the IRS-2- “must show that the investigation will be conducted pursuant to a legitimate purpose, that the inquiry may be relevant to the purpose, that the information sought is not already within the [IRS’s] possession, and th at the administrative steps required by the [Internal Revenue] Code have been followed.” Id . A court, however, “may not permit its process to be abused,” and “[s]uch an abuse would take place if the summons had been issued for an improper purpose, such as to harass th e taxpayer or to put pressure on him to settle a collateral dispute, or for any other purpose reflecting on the good faith of the particularinvestigation.” Id . We conclude that th e district court did not clearly err in its determinations under Powell , and that Schulz did not meet his burden to show that the IRS abused the summ ons process or lacked good faith. See United States v. Norwood , 420 F.3d 888, 892 (8th Cir. 2005); Un ited States v. Dynavac, Inc. , 6 F.3d 1407, 1414 (9th Cir. 1993).
We also hold that the district court did not abuse its di scretion in denying Schulz’s request for an evidentiary hearing. SeeUnited States v. Nat’l Bank of S.D. , 622 F.2d 365, 367 (8th Cir. 1980) (per curiam). A district court has discretionary authority to deny a hearing in summons enforcement pro ceeding, and an evidentiary hearing is necessary only where substantial deficiencies in summ ons proceedings are raised by party challenging summons. Id

. Finally, we conclude that Schulz’s constitutional arguments challenging the IRS’s authority to enforce the tax laws are without merit. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 32675 1980
HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 32676 1980
Att. 005

Contains Confidential Business Information

Manufacturing Process Description
# C_2014376EN.01000801.xml

| 23.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 376/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 376/8

---

CALL FOR PROPOSALS 2015 — EAC/A04/2014

Erasmus+ Programme: Change of deadline for the submission of applications (Key Action 2 — Strategic partnerships in the field of education and training)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 344 of 2 October 2014
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 344 of 2 October 2014

2014/C 376/07

Point 5 ‘Deadline for the submission of applications’ has been amended as follows, as regards Key Action 2 — Strategic partnerships:

‘Key Action 2

| Strategic partnerships in the field of youth | 4 February 2015 |
| --- | --- |
| Strategic partnerships in the field of education and training | 31 March 2015 |
| Strategic partnerships in the field of youth | 30 April 2015 |
| Strategic partnerships in the field of youth | 1 October 2015’ |

Strategic partnerships in the field of youth

4 February 2015

Strategic partnerships in the field of education and training

31 March 2015

Strategic partnerships in the field of youth

30 April 2015

Strategic partnerships in the field of youth

1 October 2015’

---
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1260

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Frederick Allen McCormick, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 7, 2005

Filed: September 12, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Frederick McCormick challenges the sentence imposed by the district court

upon his guilty plea to possession of pseudoephedrine for the purpose of

manufacturing methamphetamine, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(c)(2). In a subsequent motion for remand, and on appeal, he argues under

United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), that the district court erred in

sentencing him under a sentencing scheme that is no longer valid.

The district court erred in sentencing McCormick under a mandatory

Guidelines regime, see Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 756-57, and McCormick sufficiently
-2-

preserved the issue at sentencing by challenging his sentencing range under Blakely

v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), see United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549

(8th Cir. 2005) (en banc), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. July 27, 2005) (No. 05-5547).

We thus review for harmless error. See United States v. Haidley, 400 F.3d 642, 644-

45 (8th Cir. 2005). The government has the burden to prove that the error was

harmless, and must show that the error did not affect McCormick’s substantial rights

--i.e., that the district court would have imposed the same sentence under advisory

Guidelines. See id.

We are left with “grave doubt” as to whether the error was harmless:

McCormick was sentenced at the bottom of the Guidelines range, see id. at 645

(holding not harmless district court’s error in imposing sentence under mandatory

Guidelines regime where court sentenced defendant to bottom of Guidelines range,

even if no Sixth Amendment issue was present), and the government has pointed to

nothing in the record that shows the district court would have imposed the same

sentence under an advisory system. Accordingly, we remand for resentencing, and

we deny the pending motion to remand as moot.

_____________________________
a-366

_ . 

## THE ATTO~WEY GENERAL

, ' ;

OF TEXAS

Hon. Run L. IutchlaroIl *Inlen II., V-164 Calmty Attorney Belile coupty Jhton, TMas ‘ R6a Authority l S the O-rslrnera ’ Court to pa hospital aad 8ecter 91118 ri a specialRlghoay ?a- (., ; Bear 

### Slr~: trdmaa **iajurod in**  the 

### c o t I r ue e sh i s l m p 1o ym s nt

. Wa 

### mr0r t*, yaw Utter of 4*:1 loth, 1947, whleh~%,a8 falfowas ‘ ~ ;. : ’

%ri lkrdlov lfortbm van erployeti by tiii QOalsslaners ’ 00nrR of thiswwnty a8 a JpmlrlLIl,gh~y Patc*Uun dariag~i ,porlod 

### l $ e tir 6 e %. .muma*t **L ’** 
**.**

**&nd** rhl&# .,&II

thd botitie

~br~‘hls

**. Hwthem**  **reboclv~d deri**  **’ oud**  bod112 Ujar48a; rh&ah has required the erpdad

### it u r e l $ s c o~@& &ë#~e

8um o f m o n ey

**by** 

### w a y o f h o s p%t a l

y lt d o ct e ) b ill a ,

l o w H r . Re tthu hag requU$t$d.th&lkurt tilhelp dofrar these ex)cInsou, wadithe Qa*rlsslouerel Is’ Wslra,u OX bal hit&him la the 8 P

ameun ,“i” 

### .th’,aetua$ bmb@itel ‘ and d@62or bills, Ii thbrcl $9 WAyrrathetiiQ~ZW they d?lag 60. . .: :

’“Pl&3 rdyiae aa t* Whi9i ‘or not the

Comiaaloaera~l

Court of ~this authority.

to pay suoh kills.* county has the
We assuw.that the hospital and do&or bills ‘~ meutloaeh in satioa which I&I* inquiry are in addition to the compens provided in Ur. I&rtham*s contract of employsmat.

Comalssloners~

Courtshave only such powers a8 are expressly or by necessary implication, g;;;;tby the Constitutionand statutes of this State, art. V, sec. 18; Mills vs. hmpasas County, 40 9. WI 4039 90 Tex. 606; Q. H. aud S. A. Rj. Co. ~8. Uvalde County, 167 5. W. 26. 305.

_.

, *. ‘ c. .r,

. ...: ‘ ,!- - I
Hon. Buu L. Butchlnson, Page 2, V-164

After a careful study of your question,we have fotmd no authority,express or implied,vhlch authorizes the Convnlssloners 1 Court to expend county funds~ to pay hospital and doctor bills of a speclalhlghvay patrolman Injuredwhile in the course of his employnmt. Therefore,your question Is answered In the negative.

We are encloslug copies of our Oplalons Has. O-1967 and O-2951, which hold that a Commlssloners' Court has no authority to pay the hospital and doctor bills of a deputy sher~lff

and of a constablewho were injuredvhlle in line of duty.

The Comfnlssloners~ Court 0r Bowl0 County does not have authority to pay hospital and doctor bills o? a speolalhighway patrolma who was injuredwhile In the course of his emCon&. Art. III, Sects. 52 and 53; ~?~~)50;. By. Co. v. Uvalde Oounty, 167

. . . Yours very truly; ATTORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS

BY W. T. Wllllams

Assistant

WT&jeunrwb:dr:mrj

.
NORWEST MORTGAGE, INC.
                                                             405 S.W. 5th Street
                                                            Des Moines, IA 50328



Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.
11000 Broken Land Parkway
Columbia, MD 21044-3562
Attention: Tracey Waldman


RE: Officer's Certificate

Dear Master Servicer:

The undersigned Officer certifies the following for the 1996 fiscal year:

(A) I have reviewed the  activities and  performance of the Servicer  during the
preceding  fiscal  year  under  the  terms  of the  Servicing  Agreement,  Trust
Agreement,  Pooling and Servicing Agreement and/or  Seller/Servicer Guide and to
the best of these  Officers'  knowledge,  the Servicer has  fulfilled all of its
duties,  responsibilities or obligations under these Agreements  throughout such
year,  or if there has been a default or failure of the  servicer to perform any
of such duties,  responsibilities or obligations,  a description of each default
or failure and the nature and status  thereof has been  reported to Norwest Bank
Minnesota, N.A.;

(B) I have  confirmed  that the Servicer is currently an approved  FNMA or FHLMC
servicer in good standing;

(C) I have confirmed that the Fidelity Bond, the Errors and Omissions  Insurance
Policy and any other bonds required under the terms of the Servicing  Agreement,
Trust Agreement,  Pooling and Servicing Agreement and/or  Seller/Servicer  Guide
are in full force and effect;

(D) All premiums for each Hazard  Insurance  Policy,  Flood Insurance Policy (if
applicable) and Primary Mortgage Insurance Policy (if applicable),  with respect
to each Mortgaged Property,  have been paid and that all such insurance policies
are in full force and effect;

(E) All real  estate  taxes,  governmental  assessments  and any other  expenses
accrued and due, that if not paid could result in a lien or  encumbrance  on any
Mortgaged  Property,  have been paid,  or if any such costs or expenses have not
been paid with respect to any Mortgaged Property, the reason for the non-payment
has been reported to Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.;

(F) All Custodial Accounts have been reconciled and are properly funded; and

(G) All annual  reports of  Foreclosure  and  Abandonment  of Mortgage  Property
required per section 6050J and 6050P of the lnternal Revenue Code, respectively,
have been prepared and filed.


Certified By:


/s/John B. Brown
Officer


Vice President
Title


3-18-97
Date
# C_2015405EN.01000401.xml

| 5.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 405/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 405/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7825 — KKR/Selecta)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 405/04)

On 2 December 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7825. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7825. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
** **

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549

 

**FORM 10-Q**

 

(MarkOne)

[X]   QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TOSECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009

 

or

 

[]   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the transition period from _________to _________

 

Commission file number 0-10831

 

CONSOLIDATED CAPITALINSTITUTIONAL PROPERTIES, LP

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

55 Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina  29602

(Address of principal executive offices)

 

(864) 239-1000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to befiled by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during thepreceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was requiredto file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements forthe past 90 days.  [X] Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted onits corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to besubmitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (232.405 of thischapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that theregistrant was required to submit and post such files). [ ] Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, anaccelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reportingcompany.  See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “acceleratedfiler” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule12b-2 of the Exchange Act). [ ] Yes  [X] No
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6899

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LUIS JOSE HERNANDEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (3:11-cr-02062-JFA-4)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 28, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Luis Jose Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Luis Jose Hernandez appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion to reconsider the district court’s denial of 

his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion. Because the district 

court lacked jurisdiction to consider Hernandez’s motion for 

reconsideration, we affirm the denial of relief. See United 

States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2010) (holding 

that district court lacks authority to grant motion to 

reconsider ruling on § 3582(c)(2) motion). 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
DAVID W. LESTER,

Appellant,

v.

PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS 

INSURANCE COMPANY,

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. 1D15-5500

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 18, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Linda L. Nobles, Judge.

Bradley S. Odom and Richard D. Barlow of Odom & Barlow, P.A., Pensacola, for 

Appellant.

Randall G. Rogers and Kathryn L. Ender of Cole Scott & Kissane, Miami, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., JAY and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
# C_2014202EN.01000101.xml

| 30.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

2014/C 202/01

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 194, 24.6.2014

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 184, 16.6.2014

OJ C 175, 10.6.2014

OJ C 159, 26.5.2014

OJ C 151, 19.5.2014

OJ C 142, 12.5.2014

OJ C 135, 5.5.2014

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---