alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 10.32**

**AMENDMENT TO CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT**

THISAMENDMENT TO CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) is entered into by and between VARIAN, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Sergio Piras, an employee of Varian S.p.A., an Italian company and a subsidiary ofthe Company (“Employee”). 

The Company and Employee are parties to a Change in Control Agreement (the“Agreement”) dated as of November 8, 2007. On July 26, 2009, the Company, Agilent Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Cobalt Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Agilent, enteredinto an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”), pursuant to which Merger Sub will, subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, merge with and into the Company and the Companywill survive the merger and continue as a wholly owned subsidiary of Agilent (the “Merger”). In connection with approving entering into the Merger Agreement, the Board determined that it is in the best interest of the Company and itsstockholders for the Company to amend the Agreement, effective as of, and contingent upon, the closing of the Merger pursuant to the Merger Agreement. 

In view of the foregoing, the Company and Employee agree as follows: 

1.Subsections (ii) and (iii) of the definition of “Good Reason” set forth in Section 3(d) of the Agreement are hereby amended to read in their entirety as follows, effective as of, and contingent upon, the closing of theMerger: 

“(ii) A reduction of Employee’s total compensation, as was provided to Employee as ofJuly 26, 2009, as the same may have been increased from time to time after the Change in Control Date other than (A) a reduction implemented with the consent of Employee or (B) a reduction that is generally comparable(proportionately) to compensation reductions imposed on senior executives of the Company generally; or 

(iii)The failure to provide to Employee the benefits and perquisites, including participation on a comparable basis in the Company’s stock option, incentive, and other similar plans in which employees of the Company of comparable title and salarygrade participate, as were provided to Employee immediately prior to July 26, 2009, or with a package of benefits and perquisites that are substantially comparable in all material respects to such benefits and perquisites provided prior toJuly 26, 2009; or” 

2. This Amendment, taken together with the Agreement, to the extent not modified by thisAmendment, supersedes any and all previous contracts, arrangements or understandings between the parties with respect to the Agreement. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties acknowledge that they have read and understand the terms ofthis Amendment and have executed this Amendment to be effective on the date that it is signed by both parties. 

 
VARIAN, INC.   EMPLOYEE            /s/  Arthur W.Homan                              /s/  SergioPiras                By: Arthur W. Homan  Sergio PirasTitle: Secretary  Date:  September 18, 2009  Date:  September 14, 2009
 

2
----

            COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 728/2006

of 15 May 2006         

suspending and conditionally repealing Regulation (EC) No 2193/2003 establishing additional customs duties on imports of certain products originating in the United States of America

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 133 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   The suspension of the application of additional duties provided for in Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation (EC) 171/2005 is hereby extended until 29 May 2006.

2.   In the event that the President of the United States signs the Bill adopted by the Congress of the United States repealing the grandfathering provisions of the FSC-ETI Act and of the JOBS Act on or before 26 May 2006 Regulation (EC) No 2193/2003 shall be repealed with effect from 29 May 2006.

3.   After the abovementioned signature has taken place, the Commission shall promptly publish a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union announcing that such signature has taken place and that Council Regulation (EC) No 2193/2003 is repealed with effect from 29 May 2006.

4.   In the event that no such signature takes place by 26 May 2006, the Commission shall promptly publish a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union announcing that no such signature has taken place and that countermeasures as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 2193/2003 become applicable again with effect from 30 May 2006.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 15 May 2006.

For the Council

The President

U. PLASSNIK            

----

(1)OJ L 328, 17.12.2003, p. 3. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 171/2005 (OJ L 28, 1.2.2005, p. 31).

----
Mohammad Saad PASHA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6922.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 22, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Desmond SHOTWELL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6540.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
# L_2010277EN.01005201.xml

| 21.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 277/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 277/52

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 95/2010

of 2 July 2010

amending Annex XXII (Company law) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex XXII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 56/2010 of 30 April 2010 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex XXII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 56/2010 of 30 April 2010 (1).

| (2) | Commission Regulation (EU) No 1293/2009 of 23 December 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 adopting certain international accounting standards in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards International Accounting Standard (IAS) 32 (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1293/2009 of 23 December 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 adopting certain international accounting standards in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards International Accounting Standard (IAS) 32 (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following indent shall be added in point 10ba (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008) of Annex XXII to the Agreement:

| ‘— | 32009 R 1293: Commission Regulation (EU) No 1293/2009 of 23 December 2009 (OJ L 347, 24.12.2009, p. 23).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32009 R 1293: Commission Regulation (EU) No 1293/2009 of 23 December 2009 (OJ L 347, 24.12.2009, p. 23).’

Article 2

The text of Regulation (EU) No 1293/2009 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 3 July 2010, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 2 July 2010.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Stefán Haukur JÓHANNESSON

---

(1)  
  OJ L 181, 15.7.2010, p. 24.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 347, 24.12.2009, p. 23.

2

(*1)  Constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 26, 2017.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-17-00808-CR

ARNECIA M. BAKER, Appellant 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 184th District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 1535848 

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

Appellant entered a guilty plea to the offense of assault—bodily injury. In 

accordance with the terms of a plea bargain, on May 11, 2017, the trial court 

sentenced appellant to confinement for 90 days in the Harris County Jail. No timely 

motion for new trial was filed. Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed until 

August 3, 2017. 
2

A defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after sentence is 

imposed when the defendant has not filed a motion for new trial. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 26.2(a)(1). A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of Rule 26 is 

essential to vest the court of appeals with jurisdiction. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 

208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). If an appeal is not timely perfected, a court of 

appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal. Under those 

circumstances it can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. Id. 

In addition, the trial court entered a certification of the defendant’s right to 

appeal in which the court certified that this is a plea bargain case, and the defendant 

has no right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The trial court’s certification 

is included in the record on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). The record supports 

the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2005). 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Brown, and Wise. 

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4451 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify that caregivers for veterans 

with serious illnesses are eligible for assistance and support services 

provided by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 20, 2019 

Mr. RUIZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify that caregivers for veterans with serious illnesses are eligible for 

assistance and support services provided by the Secretary 

of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Support Our Services 

5 to Veterans Caregivers Act’’ or the ‘‘S.O.S. Veterans 

6 Caregivers Act’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4451 IH

1 SEC. 2. IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVICES PROVIDED TO CARE2 GIVERS OF VETERANS. 

3 (a) CAREGIVERS OF VETERANS WITH SERIOUS ILL4 NESSES.—Paragraph (2)(B) of section 1720G(a) of title 

5 38, United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘illness 

6 or’’ after ‘‘serious’’ each place it appears. 

7 (b) ASSESSING CAREGIVER AND VETERAN BURDEN

8 AND SATISFACTION.— 

9 (1) SURVEY.—Paragraph (3)(A)(ii) of such sec10 tion is amended— 

11 (A) in subclause (V), by striking ‘‘; and’’ 

12 and inserting a semicolon; 

13 (B) in subclause (VI)(bb), by striking the 

14 period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

15 (C) by adding at the end the following new 

16 subclause: 

17 ‘‘(VII) not less than annually, a multi18 dimensional assessment to measure, in both ob19 jective and subjective terms, the burden and 

20 strain felt by the family caregiver.’’. 

21 (2) REPORTS.—Section 101(c)(2)(B) of the 

22 Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services 

23 Act of 2010 (38 U.S.C. 1720G note) is amended— 

24 (A) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘; and’’ and 

25 inserting a semicolon; 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4451 IH

1 (B) in clause (iii), by striking the period at 

2 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

3 (C) by adding at the end the following new 

4 clause: 

5 ‘‘(iv) a description of the satisfaction 

6 experienced by caregivers and veterans 

7 with respect to such program, including 

8 any findings regarding whether such pro9 gram reduces the burden and strain felt by 

10 caregivers.’’. 

11 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to services provided 

13 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1162

AN ACT

To designate the bridge on United States Route

liam H. Natcher Bridge’’.Kentucky, and Rockport, Indiana, as the ‘‘Wil231 that crosses the Ohio River between Maceo,
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1162

AN ACT

To designate the bridge on United States Route 231 that

crosses the Ohio River between Maceo, Kentucky, and

Rockport, Indiana, as the ‘‘William H. Natcher Bridge’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1162EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The bridge on United States Route 231 that crosses

3 the Ohio River between Maceo, Kentucky, and Rockport,

4 Indiana, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘William

5 H. Natcher Bridge’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the bridge

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

10 to the ‘‘William H. Natcher Bridge’’.

Passed the House of Representatives May 4, 1999.

Attest:

Clerk.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

TARIQ BELT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________ 

2014-5114

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:10-cv-00466-NBF, Judge Nancy B. Firestone. 

______________________ 

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

 The court directs Tariq Belt to show cause why his 

appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

The order of the Court of Federal Claims that Mr. 

Belt has appealed returned his complaint but granted 

leave to file a complaint that conformed to the court’s 

rules. Ordinarily, this court is authorized to review only a 

“final decision of the United States Court of Federal 

Claims.” 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). While there are excepCase: 14-5114 Document: 3 Page: 1 Filed: 07/30/2014
2 BELT v. US

tions to this general rule, it does not appear that the order 

in question falls within any of those exceptions. 

Accordingly,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

 (1) Belt is directed to show cause within 21 days from 

the date of this order why his appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The appellee may also 

respond within that time.

 (2) Mr. Belt’s motion for an extension of time is 

denied as moot. The briefing schedule is stayed. 

 

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court

s24

Case: 14-5114 Document: 3 Page: 2 Filed: 07/30/2014
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 of Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Glenn L. Cooper, 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 to the best of my knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Glenn L. Cooper    
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer
|    | 
|    |  | February 9, 2005
CITY OF SANDPOINT, IDAHO, et al., petitioners, v. Dana MADDOX, on Behalf of Minor Children D.M. and D.M., et al.

No. 18-724.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 19, 2019.

*1179Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Ronald MORROBEL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7750.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 4, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Darwin Markeith HUGGANS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7367.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 19, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 19-14434

____________________

RICHARD HUNSTEIN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

PREFERRED COLLECTION AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES, 

INC., 

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cv-00983-TPB-TGW

____________________

USCA11 Case: 19-14434 Date Filed: 11/17/2021 Page: 1 of 2
2 Opinion of the Court 19-14434

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, CHIEF JUDGE, WILSON, JORDAN,

ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, BRANCH, GRANT,

LUCK, LAGOA, AND BRASHER, CIRCUIT JUDGES.

A judge of this Court having requested a poll on whether 

this case should be reheard en banc, and a majority of the judges of 

this Court in active service having voted in favor, the Court sua 

sponte ORDERS that this case will be reheard en banc. The panel’s 

opinion is VACATED.

USCA11 Case: 19-14434 Date Filed: 11/17/2021 Page: 2 of 2
Robert Alan FRATTA, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 18-6298.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 25, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          56,534
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          22,682
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               108,969
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    200,803
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         181,800
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           178,739
<LOANS>                                      4,214,367
<ALLOWANCE>                                     17,870
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,993,246
<DEPOSITS>                                   2,876,553
<SHORT-TERM>                                   324,675
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,340,400
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           254
<OTHER-SE>                                     358,911
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               4,993,246
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                145,561
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               14,067
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 5,094
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               164,722
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              53,691
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              48,427
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           62,604
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      600
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (567)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 35,645
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 41,898
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      26,780
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,780
<EPS-BASIC>                                      1.140
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    1.130
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.28
<LOANS-NON>                                     14,650
<LOANS-PAST>                                       612
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                17,276
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       16
<RECOVERIES>                                        10
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               17,870
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         17,870


</TABLE>
Roderic Malcolm SCHMIDT, petitioner, v. COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE, et al.

No. 16-1314.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Cheryl Lynn JOSSIE, petitioner, v. CVS PHARMACY.

No. 18-6354.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 25, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Marbin Rene REYES-RUIZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7550.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# L_2009005EN.01S00301.xml

| 9.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 5/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 5/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
In Re VOTER VERIFIED, INC., petitioner.

No. 17-1614.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.
“Exhibit 33”

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Golden Patriot, Corp. (the “Company”), on Form 10-KSB for the period ending April 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bradley Rudman, President and Chief 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, that:

 

1.

The Report duly complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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.

 

 

/s/ Bradley Rudman

___________________________

Bradley Rudman, President & Chief Financial Officer

August 14, 2007