alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.7





 Exhibit 10.7 

Spousal Consent Letter 
 To: Beijing
Burning Rock Biotech Limited 
 Whereas, 
  

	1.	 I, [Name of Spouse] (ID card number: ***), is the spouse of [Name of Shareholder], a natural person (ID card
number: ***). [Name of Shareholder] holds [    ]% of the equity interests in Burning Rock (Beijing) Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (the “Equity”); 



 

	2.	 In relation to the Equity held by [Name of Shareholder], [Name of Shareholder] executed an Exclusive Call
Option Agreement with Beijing Burning Rock Biotech Limited and other related parties thereto on October 21, 2019; an Equity Pledge Agreement with Beijing Burning Rock Biotech Limited and other related parties thereto on October 21, 2019
and an Agreement for Power of Attorney with Beijing Burning Rock Biotech Limited and other related parties thereto on October 21, 2019; and 


  

	3.	 On October 21, 2019, Burning Rock (Beijing) Biotechnology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Burning Rock Biotech
Limited executed an Exclusive Business Cooperation Agreement. The Exclusive Business Cooperation Agreement, together with the Exclusive Call Option Agreement, the Equity Pledge Agreement and the Agreement for Power of Attorney mentioned above,
constitute contractual control arrangements in relation to Burning Rock (Beijing) Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (“Contractual Control Arrangements”). 



On October 21, 2019, I hereby confirm and irrevocably undertake: 
  

	1.	 I confirm that I have full knowledge of and agree to the execution of the Exclusive Call Option Agreement, the
Equity Pledge Agreement and the Agreement for Power of Attorney by my spouse, [Name of Shareholder]. The Equity in Burning Rock (Beijing) Biotechnology Co., Ltd. held by [Name of Shareholder] is not matrimonial property owned by me and [Name of
Shareholder] and I do not enjoy any interest to the Equity, including any rights conferred under the Contractual Control Arrangements. I shall not take any action which may interfere with the Contractual Control Arrangements, including but not
limited to any claims in respect of the Equity and rights conferred under the Contractual Control Arrangements. 


  

	2.	 I undertake that I never and shall not plan to engage in the management and operation of Burning Rock (Beijing)
Biotechnology Co., Ltd.. I shall not file any claim in respect of any interests in the equity and assets of Burning Rock (Beijing) Biotechnology Co., Ltd.. 















	3.	 If for any reason I obtain the whole or parts of the Equity, I shall unconditionally agree that I shall be
bound by the Contractual Control Arrangements, as if I were the party thereto and for that purposes I agree to take, and assist in taking, all necessary actions and execute all necessary documents. 



This undertaking, once I executed, shall be with immediate effect and remain in force. 

 

			
	Signature:	 	 /s/ [Name of Spouse]

		 	[Date]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,151,092
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             2,123,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  1,422,749
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       2,717,144
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     57,978,296
<ALLOWANCE>                                    727,598
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              68,874,521
<DEPOSITS>                                  60,031,341
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,041,843
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       800,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,001,337
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              68,874,521
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              4,000,251
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              334,357
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                73,669
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             4,408,277
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,329,064
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,341,718
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,066,559
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  356,453
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               1,617
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,795,107
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                406,593
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     406,593
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   239,112
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.76
<LOANS-NON>                                     31,988
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               382,122
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   11,127
<RECOVERIES>                                       150
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              727,598
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           365,453
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### Josephine Lombardo et al., Appellants, v Robert G. Hayward, Respondent.

On the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the court found that the plaintiffs had not raised a triable issue of fact *791as to "serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (Insurance Law former § 671 [4]; *see, Brown v Visan Fuel Oil Co.,*114 AD2d 396). Nothing in the record persuades us that this conclusion was erroneous. By the injured plaintiffs own account, the consequences of the accident involving the plaintiffs and the defendant were too minor for any injury she suffered to have resulted in permanent loss of use, or permanent consequential use of a body organ, member or function or significant limitation of such use, or to have been a substantial daily impediment to the injured plaintiff’s usual and customary activities *(see,*Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Mollen, P. J., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
        
<S>                             <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    OTHER
<CASH>                                              11
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0         
<FN>
<F1>                   UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET USED
</FN>
<PP&E>                                           6,881
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                          5,298
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                         639
<FN>
<F2>                       EQUITY IS PARTNERS' CAPITAL
</FN>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,100
<SALES>                                            396
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   396
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   401
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 130
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (165)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (165)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (165)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (68)
<FN>
<F3>                           ENTITY IS A PARTNERSHIP, EPS IS LOSS PER
                               LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNIT
</FN>
        





</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

WILLIAM MITCHELL, 

Petitioner, 1:14-cv-01854-CL 

v. 

RUSSEL BURGER, et al., 

Respondents. 

CLARKE, Magistrate Judge. 

FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

Petitioner was a pretrial detainee in the Jackson County 

Jail at the time he filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 proceeding 

seeking his "immediate release from custody." The record 

reflects that petitioner has been transferred and is presently 

in federal custody in the Seatac Federal Detention Center in 

Seattle, Washington. 

By Order (#5) entered November 24, 2014, petitioner was 

1 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 1:14-cv-01854-CL Document 18 Filed 02/10/15 Page 1 of 3
advised of the exhaustion of state remedies requirement and 

the policy against federal intervention in state court 

proceedings. Petitioner was ordered to show cause within 30 

days why this proceeding should not be summarily dismissed. 

That order was re-sent to petitioner at his address of record 

on December 5, 2015. Although petitioner has filed a Motion 

to Transfer (#17), he has not complied with the court's order 

to show cause. 

Petitioner's Petition (#1) should be denied for the 

reasons set forth in the court's Order (#5) and for failure to 

prosecute. Pe~itioner's Motion to transfer (#17) should be 

denied. The clerk of the court should be directed to enter a 

judgment dismissing this proceeding. 

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately 

appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice 

of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a) (1), Federal Rules of Appellate 

Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district 

court's judgment or appealable order. The parties shall have 

fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this 

recommendation within which to file specific written 

objections with the court. Thereafter, the parties have 

fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the 

objections. Failure to timely file objections to any factual 

determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a 

2 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 1:14-cv-01854-CL Document 18 Filed 02/10/15 Page 2 of 3
waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of· the 

factual issues and will constitute a waiver of a party's right 

to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or 

judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's 

recommendation. 

Certificate of Appealability 

Should petitioner appeal, a certificate of appealability 

should be denied as petitioner has not made a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See, 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

DATED this j'O day of Februa-r-y 

~~rk ~ D. Clarke 

United States Magistrate Judge 

3 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 1:14-cv-01854-CL Document 18 Filed 02/10/15 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit
32.1


CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of ARC Wireless Solutions,
Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jason
Young, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge
that:





(1) 
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.





Date:
December 9, 2009





By:
            /s/
      Jason YoungName:   Jason
      YoungTitle:     Principal
      Executive Officer and
              Principal Financial Officer
gnft-ex47_442.htm



 

Exhibit 4.7

 

Summary of the 2019 Stock Options Plans

 

Stock options (options de souscription et/ou d’achat d’actions) are granted for free and entitle each holder to subscribe for new shares and/or purchase existing shares of our Company at an exercise price set at the time of grant.

 

Administration. Pursuant to delegations granted at our general meeting of the shareholders, our board of directors determines (and formerly our executive board (directoire) determined) the list of the beneficiaries, the grant dates, the exercise price, the number of stock options granted and the terms and conditions of the stock options, including the number of shares underlying each stock option, their vesting schedule and exercise period.

 

Grants. Our stock options were granted to our Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors, executive officers and employees of our Company. A total of 151,850 stock options have been granted and accepted by the beneficiaries under three (3) plans in 2019, with different terms and conditions as set out below. We have one (1) stock option plan for French beneficiaries (SO 2019) and two (2) stock plans for U.S. beneficiaries, that were designed to benefit from the “Incentive Stock Options” status (SO US 2019 and SO US 2019-2).

 

Underlying shares. The securities to which our stock options give rights are new ordinary shares of our Company. The number of ordinary shares to which each stock option gives right is one (1) new ordinary share.

 

The number of ordinary shares to which each stock option gives right can be adjusted, upwards or downwards, as a result of certain corporate transactions, such as rights issues.

 

Standard terms. Our stock options are exercisable during a period of seven (7) years following a three (3) year vesting period at the end of which the beneficiary must be effectively present in our Company or its consolidated subsidiaries (subject to exceptions) and subject to meeting the performance conditions that are assessed by our board of directors.

 

The terms and conditions of our stock options in respect of each of our plans are as follows:

 


	
 
	
 
	
Performance conditions
	
 
	
Assessment date(s)
of presence and
performance
conditions
	
 
	
Lock-up period
end date
	
 
	
Exercise
price
	
 

	
SO 2019

 
	
 
	
(i) Internal performance (1)


(ii) External performance (2)
	
 
	
September 16, 2022  
	
 
	
September 17, 2022
	
 
	
€
	
13.99
	
 

	
SO US 2019
	
 
	
 
	
September 16, 2022
	
 
	
September 17, 2022
	
 
	
€
	
16.90
	
 

	
SO US 2019-2
	
 
	
 
	
January 16, 2023
	
 
	
January 17, 2023
	
 
	
€ 
	
14.31
	
 




 



(1)         Based on the achievement of milestones in the development of our Company.

(2)         Based on the evolution of the share price of our Company.

 

1
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1694 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1694

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 18, 2015

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend MAP-21 to improve contracting opportunities for veteran-owned 
            small business concerns, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Fairness to Veterans for 
Infrastructure Investment Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES.

    Section 1101(b) of MAP-21 (23 U.S.C. 101 note) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(C) Veteran-owned small business concern.--The 
                term `veteran-owned small business concern' has the 
                meaning given the term `small business concern owned 
                and controlled by veterans' in section 3(q) of the 
                Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(q)).'';
            (2) in paragraph (3) by inserting ``and veteran-owned small 
        business concerns'' before the period at the end; and
            (3) in paragraph (4)(B)--
                    (A) in clause (ii) by striking ``and'' at the end;
                    (B) in clause (iii) by striking the period at the 
                end and inserting ``; and''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
                            ``(iv) veterans.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 17, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
**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 Annual Report of SRS Labs, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-K/A for the year ending December 31, 2004 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),Thomas C.K. Yuen, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:

 

1.                                       The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated: May 17, 2005 | By:      | /s/ THOMAS C.K. YUEN                                                                |
|---------------------|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                |     | Thomas C.K. Yuen                                                                    |
| * *            | * * | *Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive  Officer**(Principal Executive Officer)* |

 

----
November 21, 2005 

TO: Technical Work Group 

FROM: John Hamill, Chief, GCMRC 

 L.D. Garrett, Executive Director, SA 

SUBJECT: Sentence Outlines for the Strategic Science Plan and Monitoring and 

 Research Plan to support the Glen Canyon Dam AMP 

 We are pleased to attach for your review prior to the November 29-30, 2005, TWG meeting the draft 

sentence outlines of GCMRC’s Strategic Science Plan and Monitoring and Research Plan to support the 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program. In June, 2005, GCMRC and the Science Planning 

Group (SPG) committed to completing these documents for your review by January 2006. They are 

provided now to provide adequate time for a thorough discussion of various plan elements. 

 

 At the last two SPG meetings we have had extensive discussions of how best to approach flow and 

non-flow experimental options over the next five years. The SPG has provided excellent input and we 

continue to revise the experimental approach based on these inputs. At next week’s TWG meeting, we 

would like to identify any major issues or recommendations that need to be addressed prior to the January 

25-26, 2006 TWG meeting. We are especially interested in the TWG’s comments/position on the 

proposed experimental design including the desirability of a Selective Withdrawal Structure for Glen 

Canyon Dam 

 During December, we will evaluate opportunities for including several experimental options proposed 

at the November SPG meeting and the comments/recommendations provided by the TWG. The new 

proposed experimental flow and non-flow options will be presented for discussion and approval at the 

January 9-10, 2006, SPG meeting and January 25-26, 2006, TWG meeting. 

 In the schedule for the SPG through July 2006, we have established clear steps for moving these 

Plans to completion with ongoing input from the TWG. We feel the support and input of TWG members 

on the SPG have helped us immensely in our development efforts on the plans. 

 We look forward to updating TWG on our continued progress at the November 29-30 meeting. 

 //s// 

JOHN HAMILL 

Chief, GCMRC 

Attachments (2) 

United States Department of the Interior 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

GRAND CANYON MONITORING AND RESEARCH CENTER

2255 NORTH GEMINI DRIVE, MS-9394 

FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA 86001

928 556-7094 Telephone

928 556-7092 Fax

www.gcmrc.gov
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

ANDRES GARCIA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CAROLYN COLVIN, Commissioner, 

Social Security Administration 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 3:14-CV-01799 

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY 

FEES PER 28 USC 2412(d) 

Based upon the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that, pursuant 

to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, an attorney fee in the amount of 

$ 4,078.80 is awarded to Plaintiff. It is ordered that the attorney fee will be paid to 

Plaintiff's attorney, dependent upon verification that Plaintiff has no debt which qualifies 

for offset against the awarded fees, pursuant to the Treasury Offset Program as 

discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010). If Plaintiff has no such debt, then 

the check shall be made payable to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiff's attorney's mailing 

address at: 1336 E. Burnside St., Suite 130, Portland OR 97132. If Plaintiff has such 

debt, then the check for any remaining funds after offset of the debt shall be made 

payable to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiff's attorney's mailing address stated above. 

Page 3 - PETITION FOR EAJA FEES 

Case 3:14-cv-01799-MC Document 24 Filed 12/15/15 Page 1 of 2
IT IS SO ORDERED this I 5 day of 0 c '-- '2015. 

. t 

UNITED 

~-·-···-··--·-·-

STATES 

~ 

DISTRICT JUDGE 

Proposed Order submitted: Date: December 11, 2015. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Plaintiff's PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF 

FEES PER EAJA and PROPOSED ORDER were filed with the Clerk of the Court on 

December 11, 2015, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such 

filing to the following: 

Diana Swisher Andsager diana.andsager@ssa.gov,OGC.Seattle.ECF@ssa.gov 

Janice E. Hebert Janice.Hebert@usdoj.gov, jan.sands@usdoj.gov, 

laura.franzen@usdoj.gov, trudylee.fleming@usdoj.gov 

Page 4 - PETITION FOR EAJA FEES 

all, S No. 934515 

1336 . urnside St., Suite 130 

Portland OR 97214 

Telephone: (503)236-0068 

Fax: (503)236-0028 

gwall@eastpdxlaw.com 

Case 3:14-cv-01799-MC Document 24 Filed 12/15/15 Page 2 of 2