alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Assignment and Assumption Agreement, dated January 26, 2009



 Exhibit 10.46 
 ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT 
 THIS ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT (the
“Agreement”) is entered into as of January 26, 2009 (the “Effective Date”), by and between ARCA biopharma, Inc., a Delaware corporation, formerly known as Nuvelo, Inc. (“Assignee”), and ARCA
biopharma Colorado, Inc., a Delaware corporation, formerly know as ARCA biopharma, Inc. (“Assignor”). Assignor and Assignee are each individually referred to herein as a “Party,” and collectively referred to as the
“Parties.” 
 RECITALS 
 WHEREAS, Assignor desires to assign to Assignee, and Assignee desires to assume, all Assignor’s rights and obligations under that certain Amended and Restated Employment and Retention Agreement (the
“Employment Agreement”) dated as of June 4, 2008, by and between Assignor and Dr. Michael R. Bristow. 
 NOW
THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 
 1. Assignment and
Assumption. 
 1.1 Assignor hereby assigns, transfers and sets over to Assignee, and Assignee hereby assumes, all Assignor’s right,
title, interest, powers, privileges, remedies, duties, liabilities and obligations under the Employment Agreement. As of the Effective Date, Assignee shall become entitled to all such right, title, interest, powers, privileges and remedies of
Assignor and subject to all such duties, liabilities and obligations of Assignor, in each case as if Assignee were the original party to the Employment Agreement. 
 1.2 As of the Effective Date, the term “Company,” as used in the Employment Agreement, shall refer to Assignee, and Assignee will be bound by and perform Assignor’s obligations under the Employment
Agreement. 
 2. Miscellaneous. 
 2.1 This
Agreement shall be governed by and construed and interpreted in accordance with the substantive laws of the State of Colorado, without regard to conflicts of law provisions. 
 2.2. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement among the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. This Agreement shall not be altered,
amended, modified or otherwise changed by any oral communications of any kind or character, or by any written communication, unless signed by a duly authorized representative of each of the Parties. 
 [Signature Page Follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the date
first written above. 
  

			
	ARCA BIOPHARMA, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Christopher D. Ozeroff

	Name:	 	Christopher D. Ozeroff
	Title:	 	Executive Vice President of Business Development and General Counsel
	
	ARCA BIOPHARMA COLORADO, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Christopher D. Ozeroff

	Name:	 	Christopher D. Ozeroff
	Title:	 	Executive Vice President of Business Development and General Counsel


 ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED: 
  

	
	 /s/ Dr. Michael R. Bristow

	Dr. Michael R. Bristow
SETTLEMENT AND LICENSE AGREEMENT


                                      * * *


[Agreement  consisting of 24 pages,  including Exhibit A consisting of 12 pages,
redacted in its entirety. Exhibit B follows.]




*    Indicates  that  material has been omitted and  confidential  treatment has
     been  requested  therefor.   All  such  omitted  material  has  been  filed
     separately with the Commission pursuant to Rule 24b-2.



<PAGE>


                                    EXHIBIT B


                                  Press Release


     Matrix  Pharmaceutical  and Collagen  Corporation  each announced today the
settlement of a lawsuit  between the two companies  which had been pending since
1994.

     The  now-settled   lawsuit  involved  Collagen's  claims  of  trade  secret
misappropriation  against  Matrix and two  former  Collagen  employees  hired by
Matrix in 1992 as well as cross-  complaints  against Collagen by Matrix and the
two employees for defamation and violations of state law unfair competition. All
claims by and against all parties have been released.

     Matrix has agreed that for a period of five years it shall not  manufacture
or sell  products that are directly  competitive  with  Collagen's  current core
products. Collagen has granted Matrix a nonexclusive license to certain Collagen
intellectual property, for certain non-monetary consideration.

     The lawsuit is being dismissed with prejudice.
**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**











We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement of National
      Lampoon Inc. on Form S-8, SEC File Numbers 333-139060, 333-91260 and 333-50932
      which were filed with the commission on December 1, 2006, June 26, 2002 and
      November 30, 2000 , respectively, of our Independent Registered Public
      Accounting Firm’s Report dated November 1, 2006 covering the consolidated
      financial statements of National Lampoon Inc. and Subsidiaries for year ended
      July 31, 2006.









/S/
      STONEFIELD JOSEPHSON, INC.


CERTIFIED
      PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


Los
      Angeles, California


November
      28, 2007
#### People v Delafuente,

5/May 1991.

No. 87770,

*Leave to Appeal Denied September 17, 1991:*

The cause having been briefed and orally argued, the order of October 24, 1990, 436 Mich 880, granting leave to appeal is vacated, and leave to appeal is denied because the Supreme Court is no longer persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed. Court of Appeals No. 112714.

Riley, J.

I dissent from the order entered in this case.

In the instant case, we were asked to consider defendant’s double jeopardy challenge under both the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and art 1, § 5 of the Michigan Constitution. While I agree with the Court of Appeals that defendant has not established a double jeopardy violation under Const 1963, art 1, § 5, I dissent from the Court’s order because defendant’s double jeopardy challenge was not considered in light of the Fifth Amendment.

The United States Supreme Court recently held that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits successive prosecutions when the state intends to prove the same conduct that was proven in a prior trial. *869
      *Grady v Corbin,*495 US —; 109 L Ed 2d 548, 564 (1990). Under *Grady,*a prosecutor must first apply the traditional test in *Blockburger v United States,*284 US 299 (1932):

> If application of that test reveals that the offenses have identical statutory elements or that one is a lesser included offense of the other, then the inquiry must cease, and the subsequent prosecution is barred. *[Grady, supra,*109 L Ed 2d 561. Citations omitted.]

If the state survives the first test, it must next establish that it will not prove the same conduct proved in the prior criminal trial.

> As we suggested in *[Illinois*v] *Vitale*[447 US 410 (1980)], the Double Jeopardy Clause bars any subsequent prosecution in which the government, to establish an essential element of an offense charged in that prosecution, will prove conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been prosecuted. This is not an "actual evidence” or "same evidence” test. The critical inquiry is *what conduct the State will prove, not the evidence the State will use to prove that conduct. [Id.,*109 L Ed 2d 564. Emphasis added.]

In light of the two separate double jeopardy tests, I wish to point out that *Grady*does not constitutionalize the "same transaction” test as we have adopted in *People v White,*390 Mich 245 (1973), and refined in *Crampton v 54-A Dist Judge,*397 Mich 489, 501-502 (1976), for the purpose of double jeopardy challenges under art 1, § 15 of the Michigan Constitution. Also, it is possible to satisfy the "same transaction” test, yet fail the "same conduct” test in a double jeopardy challenge. If this is the case, the *Grady*test will, of course, take precedence.

Finally, I recommend the implementation of the procedural mechanism used by the federal court of appeals to assess double jeopardy challenges in light of the "same conduct” test. See *Grady, supra,*109 L Ed 2d 565, n 14.

Boyle, J.

I concur in the statement by Riley, J.
Ethan L. ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D17-2844

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 15, 2018

Ethan L. Anderson, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Kaitlin Weiss, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition is denied on the merits.

Wetherell, Rowe, and Jay, JJ., concur.
Case 1:01-cv-00107-HJW-TSH Document 49 Filed 02/24/2004 Page 1 of 1
IV 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 50 

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the withdrawal of American Forces 

from the country of Afghanistan does not undermine or diminish the 

sacrifice, efforts, and accomplishments of our members of the Armed 

Forces, diplomats, humanitarians, allies, and partners. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2021 

Mrs. HINSON (for herself, Mr. NEWHOUSE, Mr. FEENSTRA, Mr. GARCIA of 

California, Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana, Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS, Mr. 

BACON, Mr. CALVERT, Mrs. BICE of Oklahoma, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. 

CRAWFORD, Mr. MCKINLEY, Ms. STEFANIK, and Mr. TIMMONS) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committees on Foreign Affairs, and Veterans’ Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the withdrawal 

of American Forces from the country of Afghanistan 

does not undermine or diminish the sacrifice, efforts, 

and accomplishments of our members of the Armed 

Forces, diplomats, humanitarians, allies, and partners. 

Whereas the United States was viciously attacked by the 

murderous terrorist group al-Qaida on September 11, 

2001; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HCON 50 IH 

Whereas al-Qaida was based in the country of Afghanistan, 

which was governed by the ruthless and oppressive 

Taliban regime; 

Whereas the United States led an international coalition of 

military forces into Afghanistan to destroy al-Qaida, kill 

or capture Osama Bin Laden, and depose the Taliban 

government; 

Whereas hundreds of thousands of United States members of 

the Armed Forces, diplomats, and humanitarians deployed to Afghanistan or supported operations from afar; 

Whereas for nearly 2 decades, the United States was spared 

from further major attacks by international terror organizations; and 

Whereas the withdrawal of the presence of the United States 

in Afghanistan had led to the collapse of the Afghan government, return of the Taliban to Afghan rule, and great 

heartache for so many: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that— 

3 (1) the men and women who undertook the ef4 forts of the past years in Afghanistan provided he5 roic service to the country; 

6 (2) the peace our country experienced is a di7 rect result of the actions of our brave members of 

8 the Armed Forces, diplomats, and humanitarians; 

9 (3) despite the chaotic end to operations in Af10 ghanistan, their service is something to be remem11 bered, lauded, and honored; and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HCON 50 IH 

1 (4) any veterans who feel stress, anger, or dis2 appointment from the end of operations in Afghani3 stan should seek available resources and the com4 fort, guidance, and counsel of friends, mentors, and 

5 caregivers. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 00-20341

_____________________ GARY PEAK, MIKE KIMBRO; JACQUELINE COGLEY, OSCAR FAVELLA Plaintiffs-Appellants
v. VARTEC TELECOM, INC Defendant-Appellee

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

_____________________ No. 00-20409

_____________________ GARY PEAK, MIKE KIMBRO; JACQUELINE COGLEY, OSCAR FAVELLA Plaintiffs-Appellees
v. VARTEC TELECOM, INC Defendant-Appellant

_________________________________________________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston

_________________________________________________________________ January 10, 2001 Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.* 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. 2 PER CURIAM: * The district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee Vartec Telecom, Inc., nor did the district court abuse its discretion in refusing to award attorney’s fees to Vartec. AFFIRMED.
Case: 2:18-cv-00899-EAS-CMV Doc #: 3 Filed: 08/23/18 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 24
Case: 2:18-cv-00899-EAS-CMV Doc #: 3 Filed: 08/23/18 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 25