alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Bonus agreement dated April 27, 2005



 Exhibit 10.a. 
 

 
 Memorandum 
  

			
	To:	  	John Fanelli
		
	From:	  	Jay Stuart /s/ Jay Stuart
		
	CC:	  	 
		
	Date:	  	April 27, 2005
		
	Re:	  	Discretionary Bonus Agreement – Immediate and Retention

  
 This will confirm our discussions regarding the
Company’s payment of discretionary bonuses to you. First, you will receive an immediate discretionary bonus in the amount of $15,000. This will be paid to you as soon as it can be processed. 
  
 Second, you will receive a retention bonus in the amount of $50,000 if you satisfactorily continue as a
full-time employee through September 30, 2005. No portion of the retention bonus will be paid if you do not satisfactorily continue as a full time employee through September 30, 2005. 
  
 Both of these bonuses will be paid net of all applicable withholdings. 
  
 Please acknowledge receipt of this bonus information by signing the copy of this memo where indicated and returning it to me. 
  
 Acknowledged: 
  

	
	 /s/ John Fanelli III


	John Fanelli III
# Council Regulation (EU) No 298/2013 (repealed)Show full title

Council Regulation (EU) No 298/2013 of 27 March 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures            in respect of Zimbabwe (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Regulation (EU) No 298/2013                     

# of 27 March 2013

# amending Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe (repealed)

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Council Regulation (EU) No 153/2014 of 17 February 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive                                 measures in respect of Zimbabwe and repealing Regulation (EU) No 298/2013.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 650/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 650/2013 of 8 July 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 650/2013                     

# of 8 July 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

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, 8 July 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President,*                            

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

 

I, Gregg A. Ostrander, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Michael Foods, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s firstfiscal quarter of 2005 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: May 12, 2005
STATE v. PICKERING.

No. COA05-1694.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed October 3, 2006

Certification Date October 23, 2006.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (03CRS217170, 03CRS217171)

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Petty, Chafin and Senior Judge Annunziata 

WALTER P. PHEASANT 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

v. Record No. 2302-13-4 PER CURIAM 

 APRIL 1, 2014 

CHESTERFIELD COUNTY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Alaina M. Dartt; Ashcraft & Gerel, LLP, on brief), for appellant. 

 (Michael P. Kozak, Senior Assistant County Attorney, on brief), for 

appellee. 

 Walter P. Pheasant appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission 

finding that his work environment did not contribute to his back injury and his injury did not 

arise out of his employment. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and 

find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

commission in its final opinion. See Pheasant v. Chesterfield Cnty, VWC File No. 

VA00000686906 (Nov. 1, 2013). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

 Affirmed. 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

UNPUBLISHED
EX-10.20



 Exhibit 10.20 
  

			
	



	  	 Protagonist Therapeutics Inc

 
 521 Cottonwood Drive, Suite A

Milipitas CA 95035
 United States of
America
  
 Tel + 1 650 587 5766

 
 Protagonist Pty Ltd

ABN 44 098 201 944
  

PO Box 6421
 St Lucia Qld 4067

Australia
  

Tel + 61 7 3346 2975
 Fax + 61 7 3346
2379
  
 info@protagonist-inc.com

www.protagonist-inc.com

	 January 28, 2014
  

Arvind Hundal
 Zealand Pharma A/S

Smedeland 36
 DK-2600 Glostrup

Denmark
	  

 Dear Ms. Hundal, 
 It has
been our pleasure to work with Zealand Pharma A/S (“Zealand”) the last few years to identify and characterize potential new therapeutics using our Disulphide Rich Peptide (DRP) platform pursuant to the Research Collaboration
and License Agreement by and among Zealand, Protagonist Therapeutics, Inc. (“Protagonist”) and our wholly owned subsidiary, Protagonist Therapeutics, Inc. (together with Protagonist, the “Company,”
“us,” or “we”), dated June 16, 2012, as amended and extended from time to time (the “Agreement”), whereby we laid out the terms and conditions of our collaboration. All
capitalized terms used herein that are not defined herein will have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Agreement. 
 As you know, we received a written
notification of Abandonment from you on October 30, 2013 pursuant to Section 13.1 of the Agreement informing us that Zealand wished to Abandon the Collaboration Program, including the development and/or commercialization of all specific
Selected DRPs and Therapeutic Peptides or Products in the Collaboration Program. 
 The purpose of this letter is to notify you in accordance with
Section 13.4 of the Agreement that we wish to modify the Agreement in order to assume responsibility for the development and/or commercialization of all of the Selected DRPs, Therapeutic Peptides and Products in the Collaboration Program. 

We place great value in the relationship we have established with Zealand over the past few years and wish you great success in your future development and
commercial endeavors. 
 Please indicate Zealand’s acknowledgement that we have provided you with proper notice under the Agreement of our intention to
modify the Agreement in order to assume responsibility of the Collaboration Program by signing below where indicated. 

Best Regards, 

/s/ Dinesh V. Patel 

Dinesh V. Patel, Ph.D. 

President and CEO 

Acknowledged and Agreed: 
  

	
	ZEALAND PHARMA A/S
	
	/s/ Arvind M. Hundal 30-1/2014
	Arvind M. Hundal, Ph.D.
	Senior Vice President and CBO
Ann Marie CALABRIA, Plaintiff v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, et al Defendants, and Robin Hudson, Defendant, Intervenor.

No. 625P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 19, 2006.

Robert N. Hunter, Jr., Greensboro, for Calabria.

Susan K. Nichols, Special Deputy Attorney General, Mark Davis, Assistant Attorney General, for Bd. of Elections.

Michael Crowell, Raleigh, for Hudson.

John Wallace, Raleigh, for FairJudges.net.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 15th day of December 2006 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Wake County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 19th day of December 2006."

Justices PARKER, MARTIN and TIMMONS-GOODSON recused.
#### In the Matter of Katherine Oliphant, Respondent, v Bryan Oliphant, Appellant.

[798 NYS2d 914]

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Horowitz, J.), dated December 9, 2003, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Kava, H.E.), entered June 10, 2003, denying his motion to vacate an order of the same court (Kava, H.E.), dated February 5, 2003, awarding child support after an inquest.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A party attempting to vacate a default judgment must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense *(see Zherka v Zherka,*17 AD3d 668 [2005]; *Rolston v Rolston,*261 AD2d 377 [1999]). The father failed to satisfy that standard in this case. Adams, J.P., Krausman, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ., concur.
OCEAN HILL v. CURRITUCK BOARD OF COMM.

No. 382PA06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 22, 2006.

John R. Wester, Jonathan C. Krisko, Charlotte, Thomas P. Nash, IV, C. Everett Thompson, II, Elizabeth City, for Ocean Hill I Prop. Owners Asso.

Katherine F. McKenzie, Raleigh, for Currituck County Bd. of Comm.

Paul A. Meyer, Assistant General Counsel, for NC Asso. of County Commissioners.

Andrew L. Romanet, Jr., General Counsel, Gregory F. Schwitzgebel, III, Senior Assistant General Counsel, for NC League of Municipalities.

*446Ashley R. Heaton, Assistant City Attorney, for City of Charlotte.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st day of November 2006 by City of Charlotte for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i). By order of the Court in conference this the 22nd day of November 2006."
STATE v. CHEVALIER

No. COA06-552

Court of Appeal of North Carolina

Filed January 2, 2007

Certification Date January 22, 2007

Appeal from Sampson (05CRS51367).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
*

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2098

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Nebraska.

*

Angel Lara-Garcia, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 21, 2006

Filed: February 24, 2006

___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Angel Lara-Garcia appeals the 135-month prison sentence the district court*

imposed after Lara-Garcia pleaded guilty to drug conspiracy and forfeiture charges.

Lara-Garcia argues the court committed reversible error when it found he did not

meet the requirements for safety-valve relief set forth in U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5).
-2-

Having carefully reviewed the record, we agree with the district court that

Lara-Garcia failed honestly to provide the government with all the information and

evidence he had concerning his involvement in the charged drug conspiracy. See

U.S.S.G § 5C1.2(a)(5); United States v. O’Dell, 204 F.3d 829, 838 (8th Cir. 2000)

(affirming denial of safety-valve relief based on testimony and district court’s own

credibility assessments). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Pierre Duhamel, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Teleglobe International Holdings Ltd;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of this period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and;



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date: May 11, 2005



|       |  |                                                     
|------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|       |  | /s/    PIERRE
DUHAMEL                               
|Name:  |  | Pierre Duhamel                                      
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5637 

To authorize the Attorney General to award grants to eligible entities to 

prevent or alleviate community violence by providing education, mentoring, and counseling services to children, adolescents, teachers, families, 

and community leaders on the principles and practice of nonviolence. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 13, 2008 

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To authorize the Attorney General to award grants to eligible 

entities to prevent or alleviate community violence by 

providing education, mentoring, and counseling services 

to children, adolescents, teachers, families, and community leaders on the principles and practice of nonviolence. 

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 ‘‘Securing American 

5 Families by Educating and Training Youth (SAFETY) 

6 Through Nonviolence Act of 2008’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5637 IH

1 SEC. 2. GRANTS TO EDUCATE AMERICANS ABOUT THE 

2 PRINCIPLES OF NONVIOLENCE. 

3 (a) GRANTS.—The Attorney General, may make 

4 grants to eligible entities to prevent or alleviate the effects 

5 of community violence by providing education, mentoring, 

6 counseling to youth regarding the principles and applica7 tion of nonviolence in conflict resolution. 

8 (b) PRIORITY.—In awarding grants under this sec9 tion, the Secretary shall give priority to applicants that 

10 agree to use the grant in 1 or more eligible urban, rural, 

11 Tribal, and suburban communities that can certify— 

12 (1) an increase in community, especially youth 

13 violence; and 

14 (2) lack the monetary or other resources to ad15 dress violence prevention. 

16 (c) LIMITATION.—The Secretary may not make a 

17 grant to an eligible entity under this section unless the 

18 entity agrees to use not more than 40 percent of such 

19 grant for nonviolence-prevention education and program 

20 development. 

21 (d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

22 (1) The term ‘‘eligible entity’’ means a State or 

23 local government entity, educational institution, non24 profit, or faith-based organization. 

25 (2) The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary 

26 of Health and Human Services. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5637 IH

1 (e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—To carry 

2 out this section, there is authorized to be appropriated 

3 $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years from 2009 through 

4 2014. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
CARILLON v. NCDHHS, et al.

No. 54A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 4, 2006.

Melissa L. Trippe, Mark A. Davis, Special Deputy Attorney Generals, Thomas M. Woodward, Susan K. Hackney, Assistant Attorney Generals, Christopher G. Browning, Solicitor-General, for NCDHHS et al.

Forrest W. Campbell, Jr., Greensboro, Charles F. Marshall, III, Raleigh, for Carillon Assistant Living.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th day of September 2006 by Petitioner for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Petitioner (Carillon Assistant Living) shall have up to and including the 16th day of October 2006 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 4th day of October 2006."
# Regulation (EU) No 1289/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (repealed)Show full title

Regulation (EU) No 1289/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 amending Council Regulation            (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders            and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Regulation (EU) No 1289/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council

# of 11 December 2013

# amending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when                        crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (repealed)                     

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 listing the third countries whose                                 nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that                                 requirement.