alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.13

                     FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


     This First Amendment to Employment Agreement ("Amendment"), effective as of
July 28, 2000, is made by and between NANOGEN, INC., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), and JAMES P. O'CONNELL, PH.D. (the "Executive").

                                    RECITALS

     WHEREAS, the Company and Executive have entered into an Employment
Agreement, dated October 29, 1999 (the "Employment Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS, the Company and Executive wish to amend the Employment Agreement
as described herein.

     NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and Executive, in consideration of the mutual
promises set forth herein, agree as follows:

                                      TERMS

     1. RENEWAL. In Article I, Section B RENEWAL, the last sentence of the
second paragraph shall be amended to decrease the number of months from "18" to
"6", during which the Executive shall be paid his salary and benefits after
termination as described therein.

     2. SECTION 280G. In Article III, Section E SECTION 280G relating to
restrictions on payments made pursuant to the Employment Agreement that may be
considered "excess parachute payments" during Change of Control events as
defined therein, shall be deleted in its entirety.

     3. REMAINDER OF AGREEMENT. The other terms and conditions contained in the
Employment Agreement shall remain in effect pursuant to the Employment Agreement
and such terms and conditions, where applicable, shall also govern this
Amendment.

     4. GOVERNING LAW. This Amendment shall be construed in accordance with the
laws of the State of California, notwithstanding its conflicts of law
provisions.

     5. EXECUTIVE ACKNOWLEDGMENT. Executive acknowledges (a) that he has
consulted with or has had the opportunity to consult with independent counsel of
his own choice concerning this Amendment, and has been advised to do so by the
Company, and (b) that he has read and understands this Amendment, is fully aware
of its legal effect, and has entered into it freely based on his own judgment.

     6. COUNTERPARTS. This Amendment may be executed in one or more
counterparts, all of which taken together constituted one and the same
agreement.

<PAGE>

     Executed by the parties as of the day and year first above written.


                                              NANOGEN, INC.



                                              By: /s/ HOWARD C. BIRNDORF
                                                 -------------------------
                                                 Howard C. Birndorf
                                                 Chairman  and  Chief
                                                 Executive Officer


                                              EXECUTIVE


                                                 /s/ JAMES P. O'CONNELL
                                              -------------------------------
                                              James P. O'Connell, Ph.D.
ARS HomeNortheast AreaGeneva, New YorkPlant Genetic Resources Unit (PGRU)Docs

----

ARS-wide
- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
At this Location
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications

| Hemp Descriptors v2 archived 2023-06-07 |
|-----------------------------------------|
|                                         |

USDA Hemp Descriptor and Phenotyping Handbook, Version 2
# C_2021053EN.01006801.xml

| 15.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/68

---

Order of the General Court of 15 December 2020 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-241/19) (1)

(2021/C 53/86)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.

---
# C_2019172EN.01002202.xml

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/22

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 20 March 2019 — Eli Lilly and Company v Genentech Inc.

(Case C-239/19)

(2019/C 172/26)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eli Lilly and Company

Defendant: Genentech Inc.

Question referred

Does the SPC Regulation (1) preclude the grant of an SPC to the proprietor of a basic patent in respect of a product which is the subject of a marketing authorisation held by a third party without that party's consent?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009, L 152, p. 1).

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6385

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EDWARD WARLICK WHITE, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-92-100, CA-97-101-V-4)

Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 24, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Warlick White, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Harry Thomas Church,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

Appellant also seeks review of the court’s order declining to

reconsider that disposition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

United States v. White, Nos. CR-92-100; CA-97-101-V-4 (W.D.N.C.

Feb. 6, 1998; Dec. 12, 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 23.2




MARK E. ANDERSEN, P.E.




RESERVE APPRAISALS, ECONOMIC ANALYSIS, & PROSPECT EVALUATION





1221 Arroyo Grande Drive

Sacramento, CA  95864
fax:  (916) 285-5271; tel:  (916) 606-4090

e-mail: e-mail:mandersen.pe@comcast.net














To Whom It May Concern:





As an independent engineering consultant, I hereby consent to the use of my report entitled “Estimated Future Reserves and Revenues for Delta’s Interest in Lario Oil and Gas Company’s Morrow 1-7 Leasehold Located in the Lonestar Gas Field as of December 31, 2010” dated January 31, 2011 and data extracted there from (and all references to our Firm) included in or made a part of this Form 10-K Annual Report to be filed on or about March 30, 2011.








Name:         Mark E. Andersen


Title:           P.E., Consulting Engineer








Signed:       March 23, 2011


Sacramento, California







/s/ Mark E. Anderson


Mark E. Andersen, P.E.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Angel Gonzalez, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Potoker, J.), rendered January 12, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The court’s pretrial *Sandoval*ruling *(People v Sandoval,*34 *NY2d*371), permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine defendant, for impeachment purposes, about the illegal acts underlying his prior youthful offender adjudication *(see, People v Greer,*42 NY2d 170,176; *People v Duffy,*36 NY2d 258, 264, *cert denied*
      *871423 US 861), did not constitute an abuse of discretion. There is nothing to indicate that the court did not in fact balance the probative weight of the evidence on the issue of defendant’s credibility against the risk that it might be viewed as evidence of guilt or criminal propensity, or that it might deter defendant from testifying *{e.g., People v Rahman,*46 NY2d 882, 883). We note that the court precluded cross-examination about four misdemeanor convictions. The attempted robbery offense underlying defendant’s youthful offender adjudication had a very material relevance to defendant’s in-court veracity, as it demonstrated defendant’s willingness to place his interests above those of society *{see, e.g., People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371, 377, *supra).*The fact that the prior offense was similar in nature to those for which defendant was on trial did not mandate its preclusion. The People have an interest in exploring a defendant’s veracity, and the fact that he might specialize in one type of criminal activity should not shield him from impeachment *{People v Bennette,*56 NY2d 142, 147; *People v Torres,*110 AD2d 794; *People v Cherry,*106 AD2d 458; *People v Rahman,*62 AD2d 968, *affd*46 NY2d 882, *supra; see, People v Pavao,*59 NY2d 282).

We further find no merit to defendant’s challenge to the court’s refusal to give a missing witness charge regarding the prosecutor’s failure to call the complainant’s common-law husband as a witness. There is nothing in the record to indicate that his testimony would have contradicted or added to that of the complainant, and the defendant knew of his identity but chose not to call him *{People v Almodovar,*62 NY2d 126, 132-133; *People v Baldo,*107 AD2d 751; *People v Shippee,*87 AD2d 942).

Finally, we see no circumstances to warrant our interference with the sentencing court’s exercise of discretion in imposing, *inter alia,*a sentence of 5 to 15 years’ imprisonment *{see, e.g., People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80; *People v Notey,*72 AD2d 279). Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
# C_2019295EN.01000301.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/3

---

Appeal brought on 25 February 2019 by CheapFlights International Ltd against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 11 December 2018 in Case T-565/17: CheapFlights International v EUIPO — Momondo Group

(Case C-170/19 P)

(2019/C 295/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: CheapFlights International Ltd (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 10 July 2019 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was manifestly unfounded.

---
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We have issued our reports dated February 27, 2009,with respect to the financial statements, schedule, and internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of Computer Programs and Systems, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008. We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Computer Programs and Systems, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-97431, effective July 31, 2002 and File No. 333-131165, effective January 20, 2006).

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP 

Atlanta, Georgia 

February 27, 2009
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 837 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to remove privatized highway miles 

as a factor in apportioning highway funding. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 14, 2011 

Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. GRASSLEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to remove privatized 

highway miles as a factor in apportioning highway funding. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Transportation Equity 

5 for All Americans Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF PRIVATIZED HIGHWAY MILES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 104(b) of title 23, United 

8 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘(6) PRIVATIZED HIGHWAY MILES.— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 837 IS

1 ‘‘(A) DEFINITION OF PRIVATIZED HIGH2 WAY.—In this paragraph, the term ‘privatized 

3 highway’ means a highway subject to an agree4 ment giving a private entity— 

5 ‘‘(i) control over the operation of the 

6 highway; and 

7 ‘‘(ii) ownership over the toll revenues 

8 collected from the operation of the high9 way. 

10 ‘‘(B) EXCLUSION.—For the purposes of 

11 paragraphs (1), (3), and (4), the lane miles and 

12 vehicle miles traveled on a privatized highway 

13 that is otherwise an included highway shall be 

14 excluded from consideration as factors in the 

15 formula for apportionment of funds under this 

16 title.’’. 

17 (b) EQUITY BONUS.—Section 105 of title 23, United 

18 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol19 lowing: 

20 ‘‘(g) PRIVATIZED HIGHWAYS.—Calculations under 

21 this section shall be made without taking into account the 

22 exclusion under section 104(b)(6) of certain lane miles and 

23 vehicle miles traveled from consideration as factors in the 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 837 IS

1 formula for apportionment of funds pursuant to this 

2 title.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### MURRAY, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 15, 1907.)

Action by Blargaret Murray against the New York City Railway Company. j

No opinion. Blotion granted, with .costs. j
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 897 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 3, 2011 

Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

AN ACT 

To amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 

of 1977 to clarify that uncertified States and Indian 

tribes have the authority to use certain payments for 

certain noncoal reclamation projects and acid mine remediation programs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

S 897 RFH

1 SECTION 1. ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION. 

2 (a) RECLAMATION FEE.—Section 402(g)(6)(A) of 

3 the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

4 (30 U.S.C. 1232(g)(6)(A)) is amended by inserting ‘‘and 

5 section 411(h)(1)’’ after ‘‘paragraphs (1) and (5)’’. 

6 (b) FILLING VOIDS AND SEALING TUNNELS.—Sec7 tion 409(b) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclama8 tion Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1239(b)) is amended by in9 serting ‘‘and section 411(h)(1)’’ after ‘‘section 402(g)’’. 

10 (c) USE OF FUNDS.—Section 411(h)(1)(D)(ii) of the 

11 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 

12 U.S.C. 1240a(h)(1)(D)(ii)) is amended by striking ‘‘sec13 tion 403’’ and inserting ‘‘section 402(g)(6), 403, or 409’’. 

Passed the Senate November 2, 2011. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2008198EN.01000301.xml

| 5.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5146 — GE/Interbanca)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 198/04)

On 28 July 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/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 under document number 32008M5146. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5146. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0017 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DARREN CHARLES DEMARIE,

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 granted an extension of time to and including September 13 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

August 8 2023

08/08/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0017
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 32 

To authorize the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make technical 

corrections in the enrollment of H.R. 470, an Act to further allocate 

and expand the availability of hydroelectric power generated at Hoover 

Dam, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 18, 2011 

Mr. BINGAMAN submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 

considered and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

To authorize the Clerk of the House of Representatives to 

make technical corrections in the enrollment of H.R. 

470, an Act to further allocate and expand the availability of hydroelectric power generated at Hoover Dam, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That, in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 470) 

3 an Act to further allocate and expand the availability of 

4 hydroelectric power generated at Hoover Dam, and for 

5 other purposes, the Clerk of the House of Representatives 

6 shall make the following corrections: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SCON 32 ATS 

1 (1) In the second sentence of section 

2 105(a)(2)(B) of the Hoover Power Plant Act of 

3 1984 (43 U.S.C. 619(a)) (as added by section 2(d)), 

4 strike ‘‘General’’ and insert ‘‘Conformed General’’. 

5 (2) In section 2(e), strike ‘‘as redesignated as’’ 

6 and insert ‘‘as redesignated by’’. 

7 (3) In section 2(f), strike ‘‘as redesignated as’’ 

8 and insert ‘‘as redesignated by’’. 

9 (4) In section 2(g), strike ‘‘as redesignated as’’ 

10 and insert ‘‘as redesignated by’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. §1350)**

In connection with Oriental Financial Group Inc.’s(“Oriental”) quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Ganesh Kumar, Executive Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer of Oriental, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), that: 

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

(2)      Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Oriental. 

In witness whereof, I execute this certification inSan Juan, Puerto Rico, this 9th day of November, 2012.

 

By:         /s/Ganesh Kumar

                Ganesh Kumar

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

 

 

 

----
**Exhibit** **21.1**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

 

| Company                             | State of Incorporation |
|-------------------------------------|------------------------|
|                                |                   |
| Young Dental Manufacturing I, LLC   | Missouri               |
| YI Europe, Limited                  | England                |
| Young Acquisitions Company          | Missouri               |
| Panoramic Rental Corp               | Missouri               |
| Athena Technology, LLC              | Missouri               |
| Young PS Acquisitions, LLC          | Delaware               |
| Young Colorado, LLC                 | Delaware               |
| Young OS, LLC                       | Delaware               |
| YI Ventures, LLC                    | Delaware               |
| Mid-West Dental Laboratory, Inc.    | Indiana                |
| Young Microbrush LLC                | Delaware               |
| Young Microbrush International, LLC | Delaware               |
| Young Microbrush Ireland, Ltd       | Ireland                |
| Sav-A-Life, LLC                     | Illinois               |
| 2720 Corporate Parkway, LLC         | Illinois               |
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------


                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT


     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, the undersigned, Betsy Henley-Cohn and John S.
Tomac, the chief executive officer and chief financial officer, respectively, of
BIW Limited (the "issuer"), do each hereby certify that the report on Form 10-K
accompanying this certification (the "report") fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the issuer.




/s/ Betsy Henley-Cohn
---------------------------
Betsy Henley-Cohn
Chairwoman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
(chief executive officer)
BIW Limited

April 30, 2007



/s/ John S. Tomac
---------------------------
John S. Tomac
President and Treasurer
(chief financial officer)
BIW Limited

April 30, 2007