alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.24





 Exhibit 10.24 

Certain identified information marked with [***] has been excluded from the exhibit because it is both not material and is the type that the registrant
treats as private or confidential. 
 AMENDMENT #2 TO EXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT 

BETWEEN IONQ, INC. AND UNIVERSITIY OF MARYLAND 

This Amendment #2 to the Exclusive License Agreement (Amendment) entered into by and between the University of Maryland (UMD) and ionQ, Inc.
(Licensee) is effective as of the date of last signature below. 
 Background: UMD and Licensee executed an Exclusive License Agreement dated effective
July 19, 2016 (Exclusive License Agreement). In connection with the Exclusive License Agreement, UMD and Licensee executed an Exclusive Option Agreement, effective July 19, 2016 (Option Agreement). Under the terms and Option during the
Option Period to obtain a worldwide exclusive license, with the right to sublicense, under the Exclusive License Agreement to UMD’s rights in Option IP (the “Option”). UMD has disclosed certain Option IP to Licensee and Licensee
elects to exercise its Option to license such Option IP by executing this Amendment #2 to the Exclusive License Agreement. To that end, UMD and Licensee hereby agree that the Exclusive License Agreement is amended as follows: 

 

	1.	 The definition of Licensed Inventions in Section 1.11 is modified to add at the end of the definition:
“and [***], and the related detailed descriptions.” 


  

	2.	 Appendix A to the Exclusive License Agreement is modified by adding the following to the list of Patent Rights:
[***]. 


  

	3.	 All other terms and conditions of the Exclusive License Agreement shall apply to the Option Intellectual
Property (as that term is defined in the Option Agreement) optioned by Licensee pursuant to the Option Agreement and identified in this Amendment as if such intellectual property had been included in the scope of the Exclusive License Agreement as
of its Effective Date. 


  

	4.	 Except for the amendments set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Exclusive License Agreement
remain in full force and effect. 


  

			
	ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO	  	
		
	UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND	  	IONQ, INC.
		
	BY /s/ Felicia
Metz                                         
       	  	BY /s/ Jungsang
Kim                                         
       
	Felicia Metz	  	Jungsang Kim
	Assistant Director	  	CSO
	DATE: October 9, 2018	  	DATE: 10/04/2018
**Exhibit32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Blount International, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James S.Osterman, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i)            The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(ii)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the datesand for the periods expressed in the report.

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to BlountInternational, Inc. and will be retained by Blount International, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Date: May8, 2007

/s/ James S.OstermanJames S. OstermanChairman of the Board andChief Executive Officer

----
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 177 (Thursday, September 16, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51653-51654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20000]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-62-2021]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 7--Mayaguez, Puerto Rico; Notification 
of Proposed Production Activity; Lilly del Caribe, Inc. (Pharmaceutical 
Products); Carolina, Puerto Rico

    Lilly del Caribe, Inc., submitted a notification of proposed 
production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facility in 
Carolina, Puerto Rico within Subzone 7K. The notification conforming to 
the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was 
received on September 8, 2021.

[[Page 51654]]

    Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be 
limited to the specific foreign-status material described in the 
submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized 
by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production 
activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section 
of the Board's website--accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz. The proposed 
material would be added to the production authority that the Board 
previously approved for the operation, as reflected on the Board's 
website.
    The proposed foreign-status material is fluoxetine hydrochloride 
(duty rate 6.5%).
    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions 
shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f99f8d83b98d8b989d9cd79e968f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="086e7c72487c7a696c6d266f677e">[email protected]</span></a>. The closing period for their receipt is October 26, 
2021.
    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection 
in the ``Online FTZ Information System'' section of the Board's 
website.
    For further information, contact Christopher Wedderburn at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#98dbf0eaf1ebb6cffdfcfcfdeafaedeaf6d8eceaf9fcfdb6fff7ee"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="682b001a011b463f0d0c0c0d1a0a1d1a06281c1a090c0d460f071e">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: September 10, 2021.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-20000 Filed 9-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### CLINTON DIXON, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. HOLLEY & SMITH, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Argued October 9, 1961

Decided October 23, 1961.

*Mr. Frederick Klaessig*argued the cause for the appellant.

*Mr. Isidor Kalisch*argued the cause for the respondent *{Mr. Stanley U. Phares,*attorney).

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed essentially for the reasons expressed in the majority opinion of Judge Gaulkin in the Appellate Division.

*For affirmance*— Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall and Schettino — 6.

*For reversal*— None.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          37,357
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           7,296
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     19,584
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         363,683
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           353,329
<LOANS>                                      1,037,101
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,360
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,514,552
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,114,706
<SHORT-TERM>                                    49,605
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             48,313
<LONG-TERM>                                     77,512
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,013
<OTHER-SE>                                     222,403
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,514,552
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 58,074
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               18,717
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,165
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                77,956
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              36,369
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              42,448
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           35,508
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      525
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 24,877
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,232
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       9,092
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,092
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.48
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.31
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,809
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    627
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,926
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      171
<RECOVERIES>                                        82
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,360
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,360
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

asAdopted Pursuant to

Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

----

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

Pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, the undersigned certifies that (1) this Annual Report of CNLHospitality Properties, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (this “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) theinformation contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition of the Company as of December 31, 2003 and December 31,2002 and its results of operations for the three year period ended December 31,2003.

 
|                 |     /s/ Thomas J. Hutchison, III |
|----------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: March 15, 2004 |   Name: Thomas J. Hutchison, III           |
|                 |   Title: Chief  Executive Officer          |

 

----
#### Fernando Mateo et al., Appellants, v Donna Baek, Respondent.

[945 NYS2d 879]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered September 13, 2011, after a nonjury trial, dismissing the complaint and awarding defendant $175,000, plus costs and disbursements, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about September 12, 2011, which found in defendant’s favor on her counterclaim for breach of contract, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

The court’s primary finding, that plaintiffs did not make diligent and good faith efforts to apply for a mortgage pursuant to the mortgage contingency clause in the parties’ contract, is amply supported by the evidence *(see generally Thoreson v Penthouse Intl.,*80 NY2d 490, 495 [1992]). Indeed, there was no *519competent evidence that plaintiff submitted a mortgage application for the subject unit or received a denial from the institutional lender *(cf. Ruggeri v Brenner,*186 AD2d 441 [1992], *lv denied*81 NY2d 704 [1993]). The letter from plaintiffs’ broker, stating that he had been informed that plaintiffs’ mortgage application had been denied, was not admitted for the truth of the hearsay statements contained therein, and no employee from the institutional lender testified as to the purported denial.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
# C_2021031EN.01000501.xml

| 28.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/5

---

Special report 3/2021

‘Exchanging tax information in the EU: solid foundation, cracks in the implementation’

(2021/C 31/05)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that special report 3/2021 ‘Exchanging tax information in the EU: solid foundation, cracks in the implementation’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu

---
Listen

# Advisory Committees Meetings

All Advisory Committee meetings are open for public attendance via conference call or in person, as applicable. An open session for public comment will also be available at each meeting. For further information on the Advisory Committee meetings, contact the Regional Programs Unit at (312) 353-8311.

Meeting Transcripts (by State)

## Upcoming Meetings

Maryland Advisory Committee Meeting
Event Date: July 6, 2021

West Virginia Committee Meeting
Event Date: July 6, 2021

-    First  
-    Previous  
-   ...  
-  11 
-  12 
-  13 

-  Event Calendar 
-  Public Briefings 
-  Commission Business Meetings 
-  Advisory Committees Meetings 
-  Archives
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40071

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GABRIEL MONDRAGON-SANCHEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:13-CR-578-1

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gabriel MondragonSanchez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Mondragon-Sanchez has not filed a response. We 

have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 16, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-40071 Document: 00512969751 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/16/2015
No. 14-40071

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 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.

2

 Case: 14-40071 Document: 00512969751 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/16/2015
**EXHIBIT
      13.1**




Certification
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




In
      connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of RADCOM Ltd. (the “Company”)
      for the period ended December 31, 2005 (the “Report”), I, Arnon Toussia-Cohen,
      Chief Executive 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,
      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 results of operations of the Company.










Date:
      March 29, 2006






*/s/
      Arnon Toussia-Cohen*


Arnon
      Toussia-Cohen


Chief
      Executive Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

JAMES MOON,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 20

- 10382

D.C. No. 1:13

- cr

- 00244

- DKW

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

Derrick K. Watson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 18, 2021 **

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

James Moon appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Moon contends the district court erred in treating U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as a

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). We, therefore, grant appellant’s motion to expedite submission without oral argument. 

# FILED

MAY 24 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 10382

binding policy st atement. Though we recently held that district courts may not

treat § 1B1.13 as binding in evaluating a compassionate release motion brought by

a prisoner, see United States v. Aruda

, 993 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2021), we

disagree with Moon that the distr ict court did so here

. While the court cited

§ 1B1.13, nothing in the record supports Moon’s argument that the court

improperly limited its review to only those factors set forth in the guideline

.

Rather, the court conducted the “holistic review of the t otality of the circumstances

and a determination of whether extraordinary and compelling reasons counsel

compassion” Moon argues is required, and reasonably concluded that the factors

listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) did not support a reduction. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(1)(A). The court did not misconstrue or misapply the legal standard, and

it properly considered the seriousness of Moon’s offense against his laudable

personal history and significant rehabilitation efforts. The court did not abuse its

d iscretion in denying relief. See Aruda

, 993 F.3d at 799 ; see also United States v.

Robertson , 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (district court abuses its discretion

only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or not supported by the record)

.

AFFI RMED

.
# C_2021269EN.01000101.xml

| 7.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/1

---

Withdrawal of notification of a concentration

(Case M.10285 — UIR/Hines/Assets)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 269/01)

On 24 June 2021, the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) (‘Merger Regulation’).

This notification concerned the following undertakings:

| — | Union Investment Real Estate GmbH (‘UIR’, Germany), a subsidiary of DZ Bank AG, |
| --- | --- |

—

Union Investment Real Estate GmbH (‘UIR’, Germany), a subsidiary of DZ Bank AG,

| — | Hines Media Works Associate LLC (‘Hines’, USA), ultimately controlled by Mr Jeffrey C. Hines, |
| --- | --- |

—

Hines Media Works Associate LLC (‘Hines’, USA), ultimately controlled by Mr Jeffrey C. Hines,

| — | The target real estate assets (the ‘Assets’, Germany). |
| --- | --- |

—

The target real estate assets (the ‘Assets’, Germany).

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

| — | for UIR: an investment management company for openended real estate funds for private and institutional investors comprising retail properties, logistics properties, office properties, hotel properties, as well as ancillary investment in residential properties. It has a presence in all major German cities (Frankfurt, Düsseldorf, Hamburg, München) as well as in Austria, Poland, the Netherlands, Ireland, Turkey, Singapore and the USA, |
| --- | --- |

—

for UIR: an investment management company for openended real estate funds for private and institutional investors comprising retail properties, logistics properties, office properties, hotel properties, as well as ancillary investment in residential properties. It has a presence in all major German cities (Frankfurt, Düsseldorf, Hamburg, München) as well as in Austria, Poland, the Netherlands, Ireland, Turkey, Singapore and the USA,

| — | for Hines: U.S. real estate investment, development and management firm that invests in all property types and is active worldwide, including in North and South America, Europe and APAC, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Hines: U.S. real estate investment, development and management firm that invests in all property types and is active worldwide, including in North and South America, Europe and APAC,

| — | the Assets: real estate properties located in the Eastern part of Munich, Germany. The properties include office buildings as well as an above ground parking garage. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Assets: real estate properties located in the Eastern part of Munich, Germany. The properties include office buildings as well as an above ground parking garage.

On 28 June 2021, the notifying parties informed the Commission that they withdrew their notification.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
IIB 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2131 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 16, 2015 

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

Public Works 

AN ACT 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 83 Meeting Street in Charleston, South 

Carolina, as the ‘‘J. Waties Waring Judicial Center’’. 

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


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2131 RFS

1 SECTION 1. J. WATIES WARING FEDERAL BUILDING AND 

2 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Federal building and United 

4 States courthouse located at 83 Meeting Street in Charles5 ton, South Carolina, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘J. Waties Waring Judicial Center’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the Federal building and United States court10 house referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be 

11 a reference to the ‘‘J. Waties Waring Judicial Center’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 15, 2015. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Hartford Insurance Company, Inc., Respondent, v General Accident Group Insurance Company, Inc., Appellant.

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated at Special Term, Murphy, J. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J. — dismiss complaint.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.