alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
f10k2011a1ex1015a_pathfinder.htm


Exhibit 10.15a




	
  

	
[ University of Glasgow letterhead ]













	
Pathfinder, LLC


12 Bow Street


Cambridge


MA 02138


USA


 

	
 


 


 


 






19 April 2012


	
STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL


 

















Dear Sirs


 


Research Agreement – Extension No. 2







We refer to our recent discussions regarding the research agreement between The University Court of the University of Glasgow (the University) and Pathfinder, LLC (now a wholly owned subsidiary of Pathfinder Cell Therapy, Inc., previously known as SyntheMed, Inc.) (the Company) (contract no. 49974/1) dated 23 March 2009, as extended by way of an extension letter from the University to the Company dated 29 March 2011 (the Research Agreement).  Terms defined in the Research Agreement will have the same meaning where used herein.







The Research Agreement was due to expire on 24 March 2012.  The purpose of this letter is to document the parties’ agreement to vary the terms of the Research Agreement in order to extend the term of the Research Agreement for a further period of twelve months.







Therefore, notwithstanding the date hereof and with effect from 24 March 2012, each of the University and the Company have agreed as follows:








	
1.  

	
The Subsequent Period will be extended for a further period of twelve (12) months (and so the Subsequent Period will now expire on 23 March 2013);







 



	
2.  

	
The research to be carried out by the University during the extended portion of the Subsequent Period is set out in Appendix 1 to this letter;







 



	
3.  

	
In consideration of the research services to be conducted by the University during the extended portion of the Subsequent Period, the Company shall pay to the University the sum of four hundred and thirty one thousand, six hundred and twenty eight poundsand fifty three pence (£431,628.53).  Such sum will be payable in twelve (12) equal instalments monthly in arrears, the first instalment being due on 23 April 2012 and each subsequent instalment being due on the 23rd day of the relevant calendar month.  Such sums shall be paid by the Company to the University by way of a bank transfer.







 



	
4.  

	
The Research Agreement will continue in full force and effect, as varied by the terms of this letter, unless and until terminated in accordance with its terms.







 



	
5.  

	
This letter will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of Scotland







 


Please confirm your acceptance of the terms of this letter by signing, dating and returning the enclosed copy hereof.


 


Yours faithfully


 


/s/ Paul Ellis


 


For and on behalf of The University Court of the University of Glasgow


 


We accept the terms of the above letter and agree to be bound by its terms:


 



	
 


 


By: /s/ Richard L. Franklin   

       Richard L. Franklin, CEO


 


....................................................

	
 


 




4/24/12..........................


	
For and on behalf of Pathfinder, LLC


 

	
Date














  





  











  








 


[Appendix I Omitted]
MANDATE

Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-14-00727-CR

ALPHONSO SMITH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 239th District Court of Brazoria County. (Tr. Ct. No. 71088).

TO THE 239TH DISTRICT COURT OF BRAZORIA COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 2nd day of July 2015, the case upon appeal to revise or to 

reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed 

by the trial court on August 28, 2014. After submitting the 

case on the appellate record and the arguments properly 

raised by the parties, the Court holds that there was error in 

the portion of the trial court’s judgment that assesses 

attorneys’ fees against Alphonso Smith. Accordingly, the 

Court modifies the trial court’s judgment, striking the 

assessment of attorneys’ fees against Alphonso Smith.

The Court further holds that there was no reversible 

error in the remaining portions of the trial court’s judgment. 

Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment as 

herein modified.
The Court orders that this decision be certified below 

for observance.

Judgment rendered July 2, 2015.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley 

and Massengale. Opinion delivered by Justice Higley.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court 

in this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

November 6, 2015 

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

 CLERK OF THE COURT
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
PERSONAL WEB TECHNOL OGIES, LLC, Appellant

v.

EMC CORPORATION, VMWARE, INC, Appellee s

______________________
2014

- 1602, 2014

- 1603, 2014

- 1604, 2014

- 1605, 2014

- 1606, 2014

- 1607

______________________ Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No s. IPR2013

- 0 0082, IPR2013

- 00083, IPR2013

- 00084, IPR2013

- 00085, IPR2013

- 00086, IPR2013

- 00087.

______________________
JUDGMENT

______________________
J OEL L ANCE T HOLLANDER , McKool Smith, PC, Austin
, TX, argued for appellant. Also represented by P IERRE J. H UBERT ; D ANIEL L UKE G EYSER , Dallas, TX; L AWRENCE M ILTON H ADLEY , R ODERICK G EORGE D ORMAN , McKool Smith Hennigan, P.C., Los Angeles, CA.

W ILLIAM F. L EE , Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, argued for appellees. Also repr e-sented by M ARK C HRISTOPHER F LEMING , P ETER M. D ICHIARA , A NNA E. L UMELSKY , C YNTHIA D. V REELAND ; D AVID L ANGDON C AVANAUGH , Washington, DC; A RTHUR W ALLIS C OVIELLO , Palo Alto, CA; K RISHNENDU G UPTA , W ILLIAM R. C LARK , T HOMAS A. B ROWN , EMC Corporation, Hopkington, MA. Appell ee VMWare, Inc. also represented by B ROOKS M. B EARD , Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA.

______________________
T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST , Chief Judge, N EWMAN and O’M ALLEY , Circui t Judges ).
AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT
August 10, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



                            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 on Form 10-K for the year ended June
30, 2002 of Prophet 21, Inc. (the "Registrant") as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles L. Boyle,
III, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Registrant, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 (15 U.S.C. ss. 78m(a)
     or ss. 78o(d)); and

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


/s/  CHARLES L. BOYLE, III
----------------------------------
Charles L. Boyle, III
Chief Executive Officer and President
September 30, 2002
Robert W. JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. LINEBARGER GOGGAN BLAIR & SAMPSON, L.L.P.

No. 19-6931

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 99.4



Report of Independent Auditors

The Boards of Control of 
Logan Generating Company, L.P. and
Keystone Urban Renewal Limited Partnership
We have audited the accompanying combined balance sheet of Logan Generating Company, L.P. and Keystone Urban Renewal Limited Partnership as of December 31, 2002, and the related combined statements of operations, partners' capital, and cash flows for the year then ended.  These financial statements are the responsibility of the Partnerships' management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. The combined financial statements of Logan Generating Company, L.P. and Keystone Urban Renewal Limited Partnership for the year ended December 31, 2001, were audited by other auditors who have ceased operations and whose report dated January 23, 2002, expressed an unqualified opinion on those statements. 
We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the 2002 financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the combined financial position of Logan Generating Company, L.P. and Keystone Urban Renewal Limited Partnership at December 31, 2002, and the combined results of their operations and their cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States./s/   Ernst & Young LLP
 February 24, 2003
 McLean, Virginia
April 30, 2012





Exhibit 4.10





April 30, 2012




Securities and Exchange Commission 

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549-7561







Dear Sirs/Madams:




We have read Item 16F of Form 20-F of WSP Holdings Limited ("WSP") for the year ended December 31, 2011 which WSP expects to file on or about April 30, 2012, and have the following comments:




1.  We agree with the statements made in the first sentence of paragraph 1 and paragraphs 2 to 4 of Item 16F for which we have a basis on which to comment on, and we agree with, the disclosures.




2. We have no basis on which to agree or disagree with the statements made in the paragraph 5 of Item 16F.










Yours sincerely,




Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd.
Oscar IBARRA, Petitioner, v. Nick LUDWICK, Warden.

No. 19-7093

Supreme Court of the United States.

February 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7472** 

RICKY ALONZO EVANS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Dept. of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. James C. Cacheris , Senior District Judge. ( 1:10

- cv - 00023

- JCC

- IDD )

Submitted : April 28, 2011 Decided: May 11, 2011

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Ricky Alonzo Evans, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ricky Alonzo Evans seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a
const itutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural r uling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Evans has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability , deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis , and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would n ot aid the decisional process.

D ISMISSE D
Exhibit
      32.4








Certification
      of Chief Accounting Officer





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


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


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Century Casinos, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned
      certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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, as amended;
              and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




|(2) | The
              information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
              aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
              Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:
      November 8, 2006








/s/
      Ray Sienko


Ray
      Sienko


Chief
      Accounting Officer
UAET (02-2008)

Unopposed Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint

Attach this form to the Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint event.

CASE AND DEADLINE INFORMATION

Civil Action No.:

Name of party requesting extension:

Is this the first application for extension of time in this case? Yes

No

If no, please indicate which application this represents: Second

Third

Other ___________

Date of Service of Summons:

Number of days requested: 30 days

15 days

Other _____ days

New Deadline Date: (Required)

ATTORNEY FILING APPLICATION INFORMATION

Full Name:

State Bar No.:

Firm Name:

Address:

Phone:

Fax:

Email:

A certificate of conference does not need to be filed with this unopposed application.

Case 2:23-cv-00227-JRG-RSP Document 6 Filed 06/12/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 380
**EXHIBIT32**

**SECTION 1350CERTIFICATIONS**

Each of theundersigned hereby certifies that to his knowledge the quarterly report on Form10-Q for the fiscal period ended September 30, 2006 of Lincoln Benefit LifeCompany filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and result of operations of LincolnBenefit Life Company.

November 7, 2006
|        | /s/ Casey J. Sylla        |   |
|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|   | Casey J. Sylla            |
|   | Chairman of the Board and |
|   | President                 |
|   |                      |
|   |                      |
|   | /s/ John C. Pintozzi      |   |
|   | John C. Pintozzi          |
|   | Senior Vice President and |
|   | Chief Financial Officer   |
|        |                           |        |  |

 

E-4

----
Ram SAXENA, petitioner, v. Nabilsi Yunes ABUD.

No. 18-5610.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 15, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Agreement for Network Interconnection



 Exhibit 4.5 
 INDOSAT FIXED NETWORK AND TELKOM’S FIXED TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK 
 Third
Amendment 
 The third amendment of cooperation agreement on interconnection between Telkom’s fixed telecommunications
network and Indosat’s fixed telecommunications network No. Telkom :Tel.186/HK 820/DCI-A1000000/2011 – No. Indosat : 033/C00-C0H/LGL/2011 dated July 20, 2011. 
 The Parties: 
  

	1.	 PT Telkom Tbk; and 


  

	2.	 PT Indosat Tbk 



Scope of The Amendment 
 This third amendment was made to cover results of interconnection tariff repeated calculations 2010 for Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) which was implemented in July 1, 2011 based on Regulation of
Ministry of Communications and Informatics No. 16/PER/M.KOMINFO/06/2011 dated June 27, 2011. In Addition, there were amendments of this third amendment regarding (i) Numbering and (ii) Call Scenario. 

Period of Amendment: 
 This third amendment effective on July 1st, 2011 and have same expiration date as Cooperation Agreement. 
 Fourth Amendment

 The fourth amendment of cooperation agreement on interconnection between Indosat Fixed network and
Telkom’s fixed telecommunications network, No. Telkom: Tel. 260/HK 820/DCI-A1000000/2011 – No. Indosat: 044/C00-C0H/LGL/2011 dated December 20th, 2011. 

The Parties: 
  

	1.	 PT Telkom; and 


  

	2.	 PT Indosat Tbk 



Scope of The Amendment 
 This fourth amendment was made to extent period of agreement effective from January 1, 2012 until December 31, 2014 and can be extended or terminated prior expiration of agreement based on the
parties agreement that contained into amendment. 
 In addition, there were amendments as follows: 

 

	 	•	 	 The parties agree to change point 8 of A. Support Document Planning and Operating E regarding Point of Interconnection and Central Gate.



  

	 	•	 	 The parties agree to change A.1 Support Document regarding Telkom’s Network Information. 



 

	 	•	 	 The parties agree to change A.1 Support Document regarding Telkom’s Network Information. 



 

	 	•	 	 The parties agree to change Tabel Routing on the A.9 Support Document regarding Indosat’s Tabel Routing. 



 

	 	•	 	 The parties agree to change Interconnection Services List and Telkom’s Tariff on C1 Document.
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to
U.S.C. Section 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Stephen T. Wills, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of Palatin Technologies, Inc., hereby certify, to my
knowledge, that the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006
of Palatin Technologies, Inc. (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Palatin Technologies, Inc.

|Dated:  May 9, 2006 | /s/ Stephen T. WillsStephen T. WillsExecutive Vice President
     and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
|------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 01/31/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      415,022
COMMITMENTS
  55,277   23,978   94,084  244,873  279,431  394,234  397,493   20,788   17,529

CHANGES FROM 01/24/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -1,342)
    -151   -1,802    3,873    1,459    3,324    5,182    5,395   -6,523   -6,737

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    13.3      5.8     22.7     59.0     67.3     95.0     95.8      5.0      4.2

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      117)
      35       15       40       60       58      112       99
```

----

Updated February 3, 2012
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

PERSONAL WEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

Appellant

v.

EMC CORPORATION, VMWARE, INC,

Appellees

______________________ 

2014-1602, 2014-1603, 2014-1604, 2014-1605, 2014-1606, 

2014-1607

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2013-

00082, IPR2013-00083, IPR2013-00084, IPR2013-00085, 

IPR2013-00086, IPR2013-00087. 

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

JOEL LANCE THOLLANDER, McKool Smith, PC, Austin, 

TX, argued for appellant. Also represented by PIERRE J.

HUBERT; DANIEL LUKE GEYSER, Dallas, TX; LAWRENCE 

MILTON HADLEY, RODERICK GEORGE DORMAN, McKool 

Smith Hennigan, P.C., Los Angeles, CA.

WILLIAM F. LEE, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and 

Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, argued for appellees. Also repre-
 

sented by MARK CHRISTOPHER FLEMING, PETER M.

DICHIARA, ANNA E. LUMELSKY, CYNTHIA D. VREELAND;

DAVID LANGDON CAVANAUGH, Washington, DC; ARTHUR 

WALLIS COVIELLO, Palo Alto, CA; KRISHNENDU GUPTA,

WILLIAM R. CLARK, THOMAS A. BROWN, EMC Corporation, 

Hopkington, MA. Appellee VMWare, Inc. also represented 

by BROOKS M. BEARD, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San 

Francisco, CA.

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and 

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

August 10, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 06/04/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      534,113
COMMITMENTS
  94,150   42,218  123,832  298,303  345,521  516,285  511,571   17,828   22,542

CHANGES FROM 05/28/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     16,184)
  -7,804      836    4,542   20,657   10,032   17,395   15,410   -1,211      774

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    17.6      7.9     23.2     55.9     64.7     96.7     95.8      3.3      4.2

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      143)
      40       37       56       59       61      127      128
```

----

Updated June 7, 2013
Juan Carlos VAZQUEZ, Petitioner, v. SOUTH CAROLINA.

No. 19-7194

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of South Carolina denied.