alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SIGNAL GENETICS LLC

667 MADISON AVENUE

14TH FLOOR

NEW YORK, NY 10065


 


October 9, 2013


 


Mr. Samuel D. Riccitelli


 


 





		Re:	Amendment to (1) Employment Agreement Between Signal Genetics, LLC and Samuel D. Riccitelli, dated
as of October 31, 2012 (the “Employment Agreement”) and (2) Incentive Units Agreement Between Signal Genetics, LLC
and Samuel D. Riccitelli, dated as of October 31, 2012 (the “Incentive Units Agreement”)





 


Dear Sam:


 


The purpose of this
letter is to confirm our agreement to amend the Employment Agreement and Incentive Units Agreement as follows:


 


1.          Employment
Agreement


 


Recital A of the Employment
Agreement is amended by deleting the second sentence of said Recital and replacing in its entirety with the following:


 


“SG also is in the midst
of raising money and obtaining funding for the operations of its business and facilities, including an intended initial capital
raise of fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) (hereinafter referenced as the “Initial Capital Raise”). ”


 


2.          Incentive
Units Agreement


 


Paragraph 2 of the
Incentive Units Agreement is amended by deleting the introductory sentence of said paragraph and replacing it with the following:


 


“Vesting. Subject
to Section 3 of this Agreement and the Company closing on funding of at least $15,000,000 (the “Initial Capital Raise”),
the Executive’s Incentive Units shall become vested for the purposes hereof and the LLC Agreement in accordance with the
following schedule; provided that upon each such date or event, except as expressly provided herein, the Executive is then
employed by the Company and has not received a notice of termination from the Company:”


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


 


Except as set forth
herein, the Employment Agreement and Incentive Units Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 


Please confirm your
agreement to the foregoing by executing this letter where indicated below.


 


	 	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 
	 	 	SIGNAL GENETICS, LLC
	 	 	By: Board of Managers
	 	 	 
	 	 	By: 	/s/ Bennett S. LeBow
	 	 	      	Bennett S. LeBow
	 	 	 
	Agreed:	 	 
	 	 	 
	/s/ Samuel D. Riccitelli	 	10/9/2013
	Samuel D. Riccitelli	 	Date


 



    	-2-
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 on Form 10-Q of Golden River Resources
Corporation (the "Company") for the three months ended September 30, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"report"), the undersigned, Joseph Gutnick, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 condition and result of operations of
         the Company.

Date:    15 November, 2009

                                            /s/ Joseph I. Gutnick
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Joseph I. Gutnick
                                            Chairman of the Board, President and
                                            Chief Executive Officer

                                       32
Emique Vivas 15 Harrison PI Hawthorne, NJ 07506-1419 March 5, 2010
The Honorable Ray LaHood Secretary ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590
Re: Retirees Support Delta's HanedaApplication
CJl Dear Secretary LaHood: Dear Secretary LaHood: Delta Air Lines has submitted an application to provide new nonstop service from the U.S. to Tokyo's Haneda airport. As a retired employee ofDelta, I enthusiastically supportthis application. Underthe new aviation agreement with Japan, Haneda will be reopenedto U.S. carriers for the final time since 1976. Because ofitsconvenient location nearcentral Tokyo, Haneda is the preferred airport for business travelers. Delta employees, and many ofits retirees, have worked for many years to build Delta's business in Japan, and no U.S. airline has invested more in Tokyo than Delta. Delta has a strong record ofcompetitive trans-Pacific service. Butthe reopening ofHanedawill putthat investment anti O'eltajQbs atrisk ifthey are unabletocompete.
t • " Delta's m.gor competitors, the Star and oneworld Alliances, have Japanese partners that dominate service at Haneda. Delta, which does not have a Japanese partner, would be at a serious disadvantage unless it is given the opportunity to compete at Haneda. IfDelta is provided with the Haneda slots they need, all three ofthe major airline alliances

- SkyTeam, Star and oneworld

- will be able to compete on a level playing field. That new competition would provide tremendous benefits for Delta's customers and Delta's employees. I urge**you~to** approve Delta's application andprovide the-frequencies proposed to"serv6""HanedafromSeattle;-Detroit;-'-­ Los Angeles and Honolulu. Sincerely,

. , ....

. ' "
|                 |                                                         |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|     |     (i)  the designation of such class; |

|       |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|-------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |    (iii)  the dividend rate of such class, the conditions and dates upon which such dividends shall be payable, the relation which such dividends shall bear to the dividends payable on any other class or classes of capital stock of the Corporation and whether such dividends shall be cumulative or noncumulative; |

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----
#### Marvin CLAIR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee, and Federal Correctional Complex, Petersburg, Virginia; Federal Bureau of Prisons, Mid-Atlantic Region, Defendants.

No. 17-7449

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 22, 2018

Decided: February 27, 2018

Marvin Leon Clair, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Lynn Van Valkenburg, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer E. Flurry, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appel-lee.

Before TRAXLEE and DUNCAN, ■ Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Marvin Leon Clair seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680 (2012). The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v.*Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on August 22, 2017. The notice of appeal was filed on October 27, *2192017.* Because Glair failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant the Government’s motion and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials beforé this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*

*

 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
**Exhibit 32**

**Certification of Chief Executive OfficerPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Alliance Imaging, Inc.(the “*Company*”) hereby certifies, to suchofficer’s knowledge, that:

(i)   theaccompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2005 (the “*Report*”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d),as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii)   the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| Dated: May 10, 2005 |                        |
|--------------------------|-----------------------------|
|                     | /s/ PAUL S. VIVIANO         |
|                     | Paul S. Viviano             |
|                     | *Chairman of the Board and* |
|                     | *Chief Executive Officer*   |

 

----

**Certification of Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Alliance Imaging, Inc.(the “*Company*”) hereby certifies, to suchofficer’s knowledge, that:

(i)   theaccompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2005 (the “*Report*”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d),as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii)   the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| Dated: May 10, 2005 |                                                    |
|--------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                     | /s/ R. BRIAN HANSON                                     |
|                     | R. Brian Hanson                                         |
|                     | *Executive Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer* |

 

----
# C_2021110EN.01003701.xml

| 29.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 110/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/37

---

Action brought on 12 February 2021 — Condor Flugdienst v Commission

(Case T-87/21)

(2021/C 110/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH (Kelsterbach, Germany) (represented by: A. Israel, J. Lang and M. Negro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed its obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed its obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment by holding that the aid to Lufthansa is compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3) (b) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment by holding that the aid to Lufthansa is compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3) (b) TFEU.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to fulfil its duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to fulfil its duty to state reasons.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Aamir A. HAFIZ-THOMPSON Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-4330

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: February 7, 2018

Filed: February 9, 2018

Bruce A. Rhoades, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Aamir A. Hafiz-Thompson, Pro Se

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Aamir Hafiz-Thompson directly appeals the above-guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to possessing a stolen' firearm, pursuant to a plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), acknowledging the appeal waiver, and questioning whether the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 at the change-of-plea hearing and whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable. In his pro se briefs, Hafiz asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his plea was unknowing or involuntary.

To begin, we decline to consider Hafiz-Thompson’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (ineffective-assistance claims are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings, where record can be properly developed). Next, we conclude that his assertion that his guilty plea was unknowing or involuntary is not cognizable on direct appeal because he did not move *727in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea. See United States v. Foy, 617 F.3d 1029, 1033-34 (8th Cir. 2010) (claim that plea was unknowing or involuntary is not cognizable on direct appeal where defendant failed to move in district court to withdraw guilty plea). With regard to counsel’s Rule 11 argument, we find no plain error. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 76, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004) (standard of review).

As to counsel’s remaining arguments challenging the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid and enforceable. In particular, we note that Hafiz-Thompson’s own statements at the change-of-plea hearing indicated that he knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and appeal waiver. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers); Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (defendant’s representations during plea-taking carry strong presumption of verity).

Finally, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
| (logo) WELLS            FARGO | Corporate Trust Services

MAC R1204-010 9062 Old Annapolis Road

Columbia, MD 21045

 

Tel:  410 884 2000

Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp. 

383 Madison Avenue 31st Floor,

New York, NY 10179

 

 

 

RE:  Annual Statement of Compliance

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator for the Florida Multifamily Portfolio Whole Loan (in such capacities, “Wells Fargo”), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2014  (the “reporting period”):

 

 

(a)     A review of Wells Fargo’s activities during the reporting period and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement(s) listed on Schedule A hereto (the “Servicing Agreement(s)”) has been made under my supervision; and

 

(b)     To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement(s) in all material respects throughout the reporting period, except as noted on Schedule B.

 

 

 

March 19, 2015

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

Brian Smith

Vice President

 

 

 

 

To:  J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.

Schedule A

 

 

List of Servicing Agreement(s) and Series

 

 

Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1, 2014, by and among  J.P. MORGAN CHASE COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL DVISORS. LLC, and as Special Servicer, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee and PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, as Senior Trust Advisor, relating to the series JPM 2014-C25 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, relating to the Florida Multifamily Portfolio Whole Loan, a  pari passu portion of which is included in the series JPM 2014-C26 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates transaction.

 

 

To:  J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.

Schedule B

 

 

Material Non-Compliance with Servicing Obligations

 

Not Applicable
#### COM. v. HICKS, A.

1409 WDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/18/2017

CP-02-CR-0006820-2015

(Allegheny)

Affirmed
EX-10.5



 Exhibit 10.5 

AMENDMENT TO 
 SYNDAX
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. 
 2007 STOCK PLAN 

WHEREAS, by resolutions of the board of directors adopted on July 9, 2013 and by written consent of the stockholders dated as of
July 10, 2013, the directors and stockholders of Syndax Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) approved an amendment to the Syndax Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2007 Stock Plan (the “Plan”) to amend the number of shares
of common stock that may be issued pursuant to awards granted under the Plan from 85,511,865 to 100,121,865; 
 The Plan is hereby amended
in the following respects: 
 Effective as of July 10, 2013, Section 3 of the Plan is amended and restated in its entirety to read
as follows: 
 “3. Stock Subject to the Plan. Subject to the provisions of Section 14 of the Plan, the maximum
aggregate number of Shares that may be sold under the Plan is 100,121,865. The Shares may be authorized, but unissued, or reacquired Common Stock. If an award should expire or become unexercisable for any reason without having been exercised in
full, or is surrendered pursuant to an Option Exchange Program, the unpurchased Shares that were subject thereto shall, unless the Plan shall have been terminated, become available for future grant under the Plan. In addition, any Shares of Common
Stock which are retained by the Company upon exercise of an award in order to satisfy the exercise or purchase price for such award or any withholding taxes due with respect to such exercise or purchase shall be treated as not issued and shall
continue to be available under the Plan. Shares issued under the Plan and later repurchased by the Company pursuant to any repurchase right which the Company may have shall be available for future grant under the Plan.” 

[Signature page follows.] 







 To record the adoption of this Amendment to the Plan, the Company has caused its undersigned
officer to execute this document as of the date first written above. 
  

			
	SYNDAX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Arlene Morris

	Name:	 	Arlene Morris
	Title:	 	Chief Executive Officer


 [Signature page to Amendment to the Plan.]
Exhibit 32.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), I, Ashley C.
Andersen, President and Acting Chief Financial Officer, of Trudy Corporation do
hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge that:

     1)   The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
          June 30, 2006, being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
          (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 Company.

This Certification accompanies this Form 10-QSB as an exhibit, but shall not be
deemed as having been filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 or as a separate disclosure document of the Company or the
certifying officer.


                                             /s/ ASHLEY C. ANDERSEN
                                             -----------------------------------
Date: August 17, 2006                        Ashley C. Andersen
                                             President, Chief Executive Officer,
                                             Acting Chief Financial Officer

                                       33