alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Termination Letter Agreement



 Exhibit 10.105 
 

 
 Arius Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 
 801 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 210 
 Raleigh, NC 27607 USA 
 December 17, 2008 
 Dear Mark: 
 TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 6TH JANUARY 2004 BETWEEN RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE (UK) LIMITED (“RB”) AND ARIUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. (“ARIUS”), A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF BIODELIVERY SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
(“BDSI”), FOR THE LICENCE AND SUPPLY OF BUCCAL PROCHLORPERAZINE MALEATE PRODUCTS (THE “AGREEMENT”) 
 I write to formally
terminate the contract, defined above, and properly record an end to this matter. 
 I will shortly give you a call to discuss the practical aspects involved
in you returning to us all confidential information, data, and associated documents relating to the application for approval and registration of the Products, the rights to which belong to us in accordance with clause 3.7 of the Agreement,
consisting only of data and information resulting from clinical studies conducted by (or on behalf of) Arius concerning the Product and related regulatory filings concerning Product Registration. 
 Effective upon execution of this letter agreement by RB and Arius, and in exchange for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, RB hereby waives, releases and forever irrevocably discharge Arius and BDSI from any claims, demands, charges, lawsuits, defenses, actions or causes of action, obligations, damages, costs, attorneys’ fees or liabilities
whatsoever, if any, which RB had, now has, or may have, existing as of the date this letter has been signed by both RB and Arius (the “Termination Date”), with respect to any acts or omissions of Arius or BDSI prior to the Termination
Date, including but not limited to any alleged breaches or defaults under the Agreement. 
 Effective upon execution of this letter agreement by RB and
Arius, and in exchange for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Arius hereby waives, releases and forever irrevocably discharges RB from any claims, demands, charges, lawsuits, defenses,
actions or causes of action, obligations, damages, costs, attorneys’ fees or liabilities whatsoever, if any, which Arius had, now has, or may have, existing as of the Termination Date, with respect to any acts or omissions of RB prior to the
Termination Date, including but not limited to any alleged breaches or defaults of RB under the Agreement. 
 May I take this opportunity to thank you for
your time and efforts and wish you every success for the future. 







 I would therefore be grateful if you would countersign and return the enclosed copy. 
  

	
	Kind regards
	
	/s/ Chris Chapleo
	Dr. Chris Chapleo
	For and on behalf of Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Limited
	
	 /s/ Mark Sirgo

	Dr. Mark Sirgo:
	For and on behalf of Arius Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Exhibit 32

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 this quarterly report of Nanophase Technologies Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Jess A. Jankowski, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Frank J.
Cesario, Chief Financial 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, to our 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.

Date: August 12, 2009



/s/ Jess A. JankowskiJess A. Jankowski Chief Executive
Officer/s/ Frank J. CesarioFrank J. Cesario Chief Financial
Officer
Johnnie Anthony GETTIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4709

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7784

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KEVIN L. STODDARD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting

by designation. (CR-93-437-DKC, CA-96-429-HNM)

Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 19, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin L. Stoddard, Appellant Pro Se. William Warren Hamel, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Kevin L. Stoddard appeals the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp.

1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Stoddard, Nos. CR93-437-DKC; CA-96-429-HNM (D. Md. Oct. 24, 1997); see also Lindh v.

Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7357

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DEON J. WEBB,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:04-cr-00012-FPS-JES-1; 

5:07-cv-00027-FPS-JES)

Submitted: February 18, 2010 Decided: February 24, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Deon J. Webb, Appellant Pro Se. David J. Perri, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Deon J. Webb seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009)

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Webb has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate 

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #17301 and #17302; WASHINGTON Disaster Number WA-00100]

# AGENCY:

Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 1.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Washington (FEMA-4635-DR), dated 01/05/2022.

*Incident:*                         Severe Storms, Straight-line Winds, Flooding, Landslides, and Mudslides.                    

*Incident Period:*                         11/05/2021 through 12/02/2021.                    

# DATES:

Issued on 01/27/2022.

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         03/07/2022.                    

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         10/05/2022.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center,14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Washington, dated 01/05/2022, is hereby amended to change the incident for this disaster to Severe Storms, Straight-line Winds, Flooding, Landslides, and Mudslides. This disaster declaration is also amended to re-establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 11/05/2021 through and including 12/02/2021.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Barbara Carson,

Deputy Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. 2022-02196 Filed 2-2-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
From: "Cain, Randy D." <RCAIN2@alleghenyenergy.com> 

 

 To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

 Cc: "Cannon, William E." <WCANNON@alleghenyenergy.com>, "Lapcevic, Joseph P." 

<JLAPCEV@alleghenyenergy.com> 

 

 Date: 07/06/2010 11:48 AM 

 Subject: Steam Electric Power Generating ICR - Willow Island Power Station (01219) - Extension 

Request 

July 6, 2010

Jezebele Alicea

USEPA

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Mail Code: 4303T
Washington, DC 20460

RE: Questionnaire for the Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent

Guidelines

 Allegheny Energy

 Willow Island Power Station – Plant ID 01219

Dear Ms. Alicea:

Allegheny Energy’s Willow Island Power Station received the EPA

Questionnaire for the Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent

Guidelines on Friday, June 18, 2010. We have reviewed the ICR

questionnaire (Version 2) and believe its breadth and depth of

information require more time to complete. In accord with the

instructions on the EPA cover letter, Allegheny Energy respectfully

requests an additional 30 days to provide responses.

There are two reasons for this time extension request.

First, Allegheny Energy initiated a merger with FirstEnergy of Akron,

Ohio, on February 11, 2010. In order to support the merger and

thoroughly explore the resulting synergies of the combined company

numerous employees of Allegheny Energy were sent to Akron at the end of

May for approximately a three month period. This has decreased an

already lean staff to continue conducting business as usual in addition

to responding to such inquiries as this ICR. Compounding the problem is

potential attrition of Allegheny Energy Corporate Services staff in

anticipation of job loss associated with the combination of the two

companies. Already, one key engineer that would have extensively worked

on the ICR as left the company.

In addition, the unprecedented issuance of a number of new regulatory

proposals (e.g. CCRs, GHG MRR, GHG Tailoring Rule), along with other

ICRs (i.e. HAPs MACT and PCB) by EPA and state regulatory agencies has

also added to the difficulty to provide thorough and meaningful

responses by our limited staff. An additional 30 days would allow for

Allegheny Energy and power station staffs to not only gather the

necessary data required to support the ICR, but also would provide time

to review the submittal for completeness and consistency. This

additional 30 days in the response time will most likely lessen the need

for further inquiry by EPA’s contractor (ERG) for purpose of explanation
of the responses provided and possibly supplemental information request

to aide clarification.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

Randy Cain

Randy Cain

Environmental Affairs Manager

Allegheny Energy

800 Cabin Hill Drive

Greensburg, PA 15601

phone: 724-838-6004

fax: 724-830-7711

e-mail: rcain2@alleghenyenergy.com
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-14-0000696 05-FEB-2016 08:13 AM
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. 09-40279

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CARLOS MEDINA-PRUNEDA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:08-CR-749-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Carlos MedinaPruneda (Medina) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Medina has not filed

a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses

no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 3, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

Case: 09-40279 Document: 00511019960 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/03/2010
FAMILIES, EMPLOYERS AND COMMUNITIES

The Army National Guard has been entrusted with the lives of America’s finest men 

and women. The ARNG is committed to providing the best possible preparation for the challenges our 

Soldiers face in combat and during natural disasters. 

Balancing Time Away from Home and Family

Since 9/11, much of the National Guard has operated far outside the “one weekend a month” mindset. 

The average National Guard Soldier serves about two weeks more per year than the historical norm. 

In particular, Soldiers who are also full-time students may face increased difficulty balancing additional 

training requirements with their collegiate obligations. ARNG 4.0 helps by focusing those additional 

training days within specific units to give the Nation, states and local communities a better-trained and 

more responsive force. While ARNG 4.0 increases expectations on Soldiers, Families and employers, it 

delivers a more capable ARNG.

Support to Communities

ARNG 4.0’s increased training time will not only directly prepare Soldiers for the missions they are 

needed for overseas, it will directly prepare them to respond to domestic crisis in their own communities. 

Increased manning and full-time support for selected units provides employment opportunities at the 

community level.

Support to Employers

Every state has an Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve office experienced in resolving employer 

difficulties for Soldiers. The ARNG is actively looking into ways to build stronger relationships with the 

employers who support our Soldiers.

Support to Families

The Army National Guard recognizes the sacrifices our Families make to support our nation. Every state, 

territory and the District of Columbia has full- and part-time Family readiness support assets. Additionally, 

through partnerships with not-for-profit organizations, businesses and other government entities, the 

ARNG is committed to supporting our Families.

 ARNG 4.0
Daniel CARNET, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-0475

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 05, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-13-00020-CV

Edward BELL,

Appellant

v.

Deborah BELL,

Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2003-CI-18349

Honorable Richard Price, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 13, 2013

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

On December 28, 2012, appellant Edward Bell filed a notice of appeal from the trial 

court’s judgment signed November 7, 2012.1

 The clerk’s record was due January 7, 2013, sixty

days after the judgment was signed. TEX. R. APP. P. 35.1. On January 8, 2013, the District Clerk 

of Bexar County filed a notification stating the clerk’s record would not be filed because 

appellant had not paid or made arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee to prepare the record and is 

 1 A copy of the “Amended Order Granting Deborah Bell’s Motion to Dismiss and Denying Motion for Sanctions” 

attached to the Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Sanctions filed by appellee Deborah Bell on January 18, 2013 

reflects that the order was signed on November 6, 2012, not November 7, 2012; regardless, the clerk’s record was 

due on January 7, 2013, the Monday following the expiration of sixty days. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1(a). 
04-13-00020-CV

- 2 -

not entitled to appeal without paying the fee. On January 16, 2013, we ordered appellant to 

provide written proof to this court on or before January 28, 2013, that either (1) the clerk’s fee 

has been paid or arrangements had been made to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) he is entitled to 

appeal without paying the clerk’s fee. We cautioned appellant that if he failed to respond within 

the time provided, his appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P.

37.3(b). Appellant has not responded to our order.

We therefore order this appeal dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. We further 

order that appellee, Deborah Bell, recover her costs of this appeal from appellant. The Motion to 

Dismiss and Motion for Sanctions filed by appellee Deborah Bell on January 18, 2013 is moot.

PER CURIAM
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 (a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**I, Phillip J. Smith, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Stater Bros. Holdings Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 8, 2007/s/ Phillip J. Smith
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1279 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1279

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the establishment of 
   a corporation to conceal election contributions and donations by 
                           foreign nationals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 24, 2021

   Mr. Allred (for himself and Mr. Levin of Michigan) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the establishment of 
   a corporation to conceal election contributions and donations by 
                           foreign nationals.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Shell Company Abuse Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 29 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 612. Establishment of corporation to conceal election 
              contributions and donations by foreign nationals
    ``(a) Offense.--It shall be unlawful for an owner, officer, 
attorney, or incorporation agent of a corporation, company, or other 
entity to establish or use the corporation, company, or other entity 
with the intent to conceal an activity of a foreign national (as 
defined in section 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 
U.S.C. 30121)) prohibited under such section 319.
    ``(b) Penalty.--Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be 
imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined under this title, or 
both.''.
    (b) Table of Sections.--The table of sections for chapter 29 of 
title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item 
relating to section 611 the following:

``612. Establishment of corporation to conceal election contributions 
                            and donations by foreign nationals.''.
                                 <all>
```