alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Acknowledgement of Term Commencement Date



  
 Exhibit 10.38

 CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETARY - 
 DO NOT COPY OR DISTRIBUTE 
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF TERM COMMENCEMENT DATE

 This ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF TERM COMMENCEMENT DATE is made this 1st day of November, 2001, between ARE-TECHNOLOGY
CENTER SSF, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Landlord”), and VIROLOGIC, INC., a Delaware corporation (“Tenant”), and is attached to and made a part of that certain Lease dated November 23,
1999, by and between Landlord’s predecessor-in-interest, Trammell Crow Northern California Development, Inc., and Tenant, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Lease Agreement dated as of February     , 2000,
by and between Landlord and Tenant (as amended, the “Lease”). Any initially capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings given them in the Lease. 

Landlord and Tenant hereby acknowledge and agree for all purposes of the Lease that the Term Commencement Date of the Lease is
June 26, 2001. Tenant further acknowledges that Tenant accepts the Premises. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Landlord and Tenant
have executed this Acknowledgment of Term Commencement Date to be effective on the date first above written. 
  

													
	TENANT:	 	
		
	 VIROLOGIC, INC.,
 a Delaware corporation
	 	
					
	By:	 	 Karen Wilson
	 		 		 	
	Its:	 	 CFO
	 		 		 	
		
	LANDLORD:	 	
		
	 ARE-TECHNOLOGY CENTER SSF, LLC,
 a Delaware limited liability company
	 	
				
	By.	 	 Alexandria Real Estate Equities, L.P.,
 a Delaware limited partnership,
 its managing member
	 		 	
				
		 	By:	 	 ARE-QRS CORP.,
 a
Maryland corporation,
 its general partner
	 	
						
		 		 	By:	 	 [Illegible]
	 		 	
		 		 	Its:	 	 Senior Vice President,
	 		 	
		 		 		 	Business Development Legal Affairs
**Exhibit 32.1**
**Certification of Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief Financial Officer**
     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of AMB PropertyCorporation, the sole general partner of AMB Property, L.P. (the “OperatingPartnership”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:
     (i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for thefiscal year ended December 31, 2003 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
     (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theOperating Partnership.        Dated: November 9, 2004 /s/ HAMID R. MOGHADAM   Hamid R. Moghadam   Chairman andCEO                                            /s/ W. BLAKE BAIRD   W. Blake Baird   President and Director                                            /s/ MICHAEL A. COKE   Michael A. Coke   CFO andExecutive Vice President   
     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany theReport pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to beincorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made beforeor after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language insuch filing.
Exhibit 12.3



SCOTTISH POWER plc

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

(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



Pursuant to the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. Sections 1350(a) and (b)), the undersigned hereby certifies as follows:



|1. |  | Ian Russell is the Chief Executive Officer of Scottish Power plc (the Company).
|-- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. |  | To the best of my knowledge:
|-- |  | ----------------------------



| | (A) |  | The Companys Form 20-F accompanying this Certification, in the form filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act); and
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



Dated: June 26 June, 2003



/s/    IAN RUSSELLIan Russell Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph E. Donahue, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 218]

Appeal from a judgment of the Oswego County Court (Walter W. Hafner, Jr., J.), rendered May 4, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 220.16 [12]). The contention of defendant that he did not validly waive his right to appeal is raised for the first time in his reply brief and thus is not properly before us *(see People v McQueen,*11 AD3d 1005, 1006 [2004], *lv denied*4 NY3d 765 [2005]). In any event, we conclude that defendant’s contention is without merit *(see generally People v Callahan,*80 NY2d 273, 280 [1992]). The further contention of defendant that he did not understand the ramifications of the sentence imposed by County Court is unpreserved for our review *(see People v Millard,*279 AD2d 807, 808 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 803 [2001]), and we decline to exercise our power to address that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention concerning the alleged factual insufficiency of the plea allocution *(see People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; *People v Waller*[appeal No. 1], 288 AD2d 950 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 710 [2002]) and, in any event, that contention is encompassed by defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal *(see People v Thelbert,*17 AD3d 1049 [2005]). To the extent that the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel is properly before us *(see People v Burke,*256 AD2d 1244 [1998], *lv denied*93 NY2d 851 [1999]), we conclude that defendant “receive [d] an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel” *(People v Ford,*86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]). Finally, the valid waiver by defendant of the right to appeal encompasses his contention concerning the severity of the sentence *(see People v*
      *1360
      *Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]) and we note that, in any event, he received the minimum permissible sentence. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Smith, Pine and Hayes, JJ.
EXHIBIT 13**CONSENT OF C. HUSS**     I hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with the following report and documents,which are being filed as exhibits to and incorporated by reference into the registration statementon Form 40-F of Goldcorp Inc. (the “Company”) being filed with the United States Securities andExchange Commission: 1. The technical report dated July 31, 2006, entitled “Penasquito FeasibilityStudy: 100,000 MTPD NI 43-101 Technical Report” (the “Penasquito Report”); and  2. The annual information form of the Company dated March 30, 2007, which includesreference to my name in connection with information relating to the Penasquito Report,and the properties described therein.March 30, 2007/s/ C. Huss
# C_2023235EN.01007601.xml

| 3.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/76

---

Action brought on 24 May 2023 — Volta Charging v EUIPO — The Paper & Office Equipment Spain Ass (VOLTA)

(Case T-285/23)

(2023/C 235/90)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Volta Charging LLC (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: T. Stein, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Paper & Office Equipment Spain Ass, SA (Arrankudiaga, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark VOLTA — European Union trade mark No 17 630 252

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 March 2023 in Case R 1860/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | revoke EUTM No 17 630 252 VOLTA in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

revoke EUTM No 17 630 252 VOLTA in its entirety;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs necessarily incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court and the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs necessarily incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court and the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) read in conjunction with Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) read in conjunction with Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 178 (Thursday, September 15, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54555]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18302]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than September 29, 2005.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Andre Anderson, Vice President) 
1000 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30303:
    1. Clara Brown, Jasper, Tennessee; to acquire additional voting 
shares of General Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire 
Citizens State Bank, both of Jasper, Tennessee.
    2. Robert Thomas, Monteagle, Tennessee,
Robert Thomas, Jr., Signal Mountain, Tennessee,
David Thomas, Chattanooga, Tennessee, and
Frank Thomas, Monteagle, Tennessee;
to acquire additional voting shares of General Bancshares, Inc., 
Jasper, Tennessee, and thereby indirectly acquire Citizens State Bank, 
Jasper, Tennessee.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 9, 
2005.

Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 05-18302 Filed 9-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
# C_2008313EN.01005502.xml

| 6.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/55

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2008 — Spee v Europol

(Case F-121/06) (1)

1

(Staff case - Members of the Europol staff - Remuneration - Articles 28 and 29 of the Europol Staff Regulations - Incremental points awarded on the basis of an assessment - Retroactive application of rules - Calculation method)

(2008/C 313/98)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: David Spee (Rijswijk, Netherlands) (represented by: D.C. Coppens, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by: Urban and D. Neumann and, subsequently, by D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, Agents, and B. Wägenbaur and R. van der Hout, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the Europol decision of 5 July 2006 to grant the applicant only one of the two incremental points provided for in Article 29 of the Staff Regulations of Europol.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006, p. 84.

1

---
# C_2008223EN.01000801.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany)) — cp-Pharma Handels GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-448/06) (1)

1

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1873/2003 - Veterinary medicinal product - Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 - Maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin - Progesterone - Restrictions on use - Directive 96/22/EC)

(2008/C 223/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: cp-Pharma Handels GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Köln — Validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1873/2003 of 24 October 2003 amending Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 9) in so far as, by limiting the conditions of use of progesterone, as an active substance of veterinary medicinal products, to application via the intravaginal route alone, it excludes the possibility of administering that substance in the form of an intramuscular injection — Whether or not the Commission has power to make that limitation in the light of Articles 1(a) and 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (OJ 1990 L 224, p. 1) in conjunction with Article 4(1) of Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996 concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of ß-agonists, and repealing Directives 81/602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and 88/299/EEC (OJ 1996 L 125, p. 3)

Operative part of the judgment

Examination of the question referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1873/2003 of 24 October 2003 amending Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

1

---
**Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 November 2007 – Correia de Matos v Parliament**

**(Case C‐502/06 P)**

Appeals – Formal requirements – Appellant not represented – Inadmissibility

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19, third para., and 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the
Court, Arts 37(1), 38(3), and 58) (see paras 11-13)

**Re:**

| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 27 September 2006 (T‐440/05) | Carlos Correia de Matos | v | European Parliament | dismissing as manifestly inadmissible an application for annulment of the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 28 August 2004 rejecting the complaint lodged by the appellant against the Portuguese Republic. |

**Operative part**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | The appeal by Mr Correia de Matos is inadmissible. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | The case is removed from the register of the European Communities. |
STATE of North Carolina v. Gary Roger THOMSON.

No. 59P16.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 13, 2016.

James R. Glover, Chapel Hill, for Thomson, Gary Roger.

Ann B. Petersen, Chapel Hill, for Thomson, Gary Roger.

Anita LeVeaux, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Michael Bonfoey, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd of February 2016 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of April 2016."
# CE2004078EN.01045402.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/454 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/454

---

(2004/C 78 E/0481)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3030/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Use of hydraulic dredges in the EU

Subject:

Hydraulic dredges, wrongly called ‘chupadeiras’ or ‘chuponas’ (suckers), a fishing technique which has profound repercussions in terms of the environment and of conservation of fish stocks, are used for fishing for bivalves; the high-pressure hosing and consequent stirring up of the offshore seabed in order to catch epi-benthic fauna in the dredges has both directly and indirectly destructive effects on the seabed and affects its recolonisation and reconstitution.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

| — | is this technique being used in the European Union? If so, where and by which parts of the fleet; |
| --- | --- |

—

is this technique being used in the European Union? If so, where and by which parts of the fleet;

| — | what is the Commission's opinion of this technique? Is there any Community legislation in this area? |
| --- | --- |

—

what is the Commission's opinion of this technique? Is there any Community legislation in this area?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2003)

(14 November 2003)

The Commission is aware of the use of mechanised dredges in most of Community waters from the Baltic to the Mediterranean sea. This technique is very often used for fishing molluscs and to wash out deeper-sited shells, usually by small vessels fishing near the shore.

The Commission is aware of some studies on the impact of this fishing gear on the environment. Detailed studies on long-term effects of this fishing method are lacking. There is however, some evidence of environmental effects in the short-term.

At present there is no Community legislation in the field of fisheries on the use of mechanised dredges. Where such measures are now applicable, these are established for local fisheries by Member States.

In certain cases, the use of these devices could be restricted on the grounds of Community legislation in the field of nature protection.

---
VILLEPIGUE v. CITY OF DANVILLE, et al.

No. 278P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

David E. Blum, for Villepigue.

Dan M. Hartzog, Kari R. Johnson, Raleigh, for City of Danville, Va., et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th day of July 2008 by Petitioner for Admission Pro Hac Vice of David E. Blum:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of December 2008."
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the annual report of Rockport Healthcare Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies 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 operation of the Company.





Dated:  August 8, 2007

/s/ Harry M. Neer

Name: Harry M. Neer

Title:  Chief Executive Officer



Dated:  August 8, 2007

/s/ Harry M. Neer

Name: Harry M. Neer

Title:  Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.01

                            CERTIFICATION

I, Tom Hofer, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this Annual report on Form 10-KSB of Vendalux Corporation

2.  Based on my knowledge, this Annual 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 Annual report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this Annual 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 Annual report;

4.  The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 Annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this Annual
report(the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this Annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5.  The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

<PAGE>
<PAGE> 2

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls'
and

Date: July 12, 2004

By:            /s/
   ---------------------------------
   Tom Hofer
   (Chief Executive Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the registrant and will be
retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.