alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.21

  

  

  

  
    

     

    February 8th 2021

     

    Immunocore Limited

    92 Park Drive

    Milton Park

    Abingdon

    Oxon

    OX14 4RY

    United Kingdom

    Attn: Dr. Bahija Jallal, CEO

     

    Dear Dr. Jallal:

     

    Reference is made to that certain Collaboration and Licence Agreement between Immunocore Limited (“Immunocore”) and GlaxoSmithKline Intellectual Property Development Limited
      (“GSK”) dated June 29, 2013, as amended from time to time (the “Agreement”). Terms not defined in this letter have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.

     

    Following from discussions internally at GSK, GSK has decided to terminate the Agreement pursuant to Section 13.2(b), solely with respect to the Initial Target Program related to
      the Initial Target (NY-ESO-1) (the “NYESO Program”). Termination of the NYESO Program will be effective 90 Business Days from the date of this notice. We will be in touch shortly to discuss next steps and which of the provisions of Section 13.6 are
      applicable to the termination of the NYESO Program.

     

    We are disappointed that the NYESO Program will not continue but remain excited about our remaining Collaboration Program. All terms and conditions of the Agreement not affected
      by this notice remain in full force and effect.

     
      	
               

            	
              Sincerely,

            
	
               

            	

            
	
               

            	
              GlaxoSmithKline Intellectual Property Development Limited

            


    

     

    /s/ Claire Macleod

    Claire Macleod – Authorized signatory for and behalf of Edinburgh Pharmaceutical Industries Limited

     

    /s/ John Sadler

    John Sadler – Authorized signatory for and behalf of Glaxo Group Limited
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 536 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to strengthen the earned 

income tax credit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 14, 2009 

Mr. PASCRELL (for himself and Mr. BOREN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to strengthen 

the earned income tax credit. 

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 ‘‘Strengthen the Earned 

5 Income Tax Credit Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. STRENGTHEN THE EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT. 

7 (a) REDUCTION IN MARRIAGE PENALTY.— 

8 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 32(b)(2)(B) of the 

9 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to joint re10 turns) is amended— 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 536 IH

1 (A) in clause (iii) by striking ‘‘after 2007.’’ 

2 and inserting ‘‘in 2008,’’, and 

3 (B) by inserting after clause (iii) the fol4 lowing new clauses: 

5 ‘‘(iv) $3,500 in the case of taxable 

6 years beginning in 2009, 

7 ‘‘(v) $4,000 in the case of taxable 

8 years beginning in 2010, 

9 ‘‘(vi) $4,500 in the case of taxable 

10 years beginning in 2011, and 

11 ‘‘(vii) $5,000 in the case of taxable 

12 years beginning after 2012.’’. 

13 (2) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—Section 

14 32(j)(1)(B)(ii) of such Code is amended— 

15 (A) by striking ‘‘$3,000 amount in sub16 section (b)(2)(B)(iii)’’ and inserting ‘‘$5,000 

17 amount in subsection (b)(2)(B)(vii)’’, and 

18 (B) by striking ‘‘2007’’ and inserting 

19 ‘‘2010’’. 

20 (3) PROVISIONS NOT SUBJECT TO SUNSET.— 

21 Title IX of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 

22 Reconciliation Act of 2001 (relating to sunset provi23 sions of such Act) shall not apply to section 303(a) 

24 of such Act. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•HR 536 IH

1 (b) INCREASE IN CREDIT PERCENTAGE FOR FAMI2 LIES WITH 3 OR MORE CHILDREN.—The table contained 

3 in section 32(b)(1)(A) of such Code (relating to percent4 ages) is amended— 

5 (1) by striking ‘‘2 or more qualifying children’’ 

6 in the second row and inserting ‘‘2 qualifying chil7 dren’’, and 

8 (2) by inserting after the second row the fol9 lowing new item: 

‘‘3 or more qualifying children ................................................. 45 .................................................. 21.06’’. 

10 (c) CREDIT INCREASE AND REDUCTION IN PHASE11 OUT FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH NO CHILDREN.—The table 

12 contained in section 32(b)(1)(A) of such Code is amend13 ed— 

14 (1) by striking ‘‘7.65’’ in the second column of 

15 the third row and inserting ‘‘15.3’’, and 

16 (2) by striking ‘‘7.65’’ in the third column of 

17 the third row and inserting ‘‘15.3’’. 

18 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

19 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

20 December 31, 2008. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

Y.D., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

METROPOLITAN DETENTION CENTER,

Brooklyn, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1190

Issued: August 20, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

On July 31, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from a January 15, 2021 decision of the Office 

of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned 

Docket No. 21-1190.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.1 

For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s review 

authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of OWCP’s 

decision.2

The 180th day following the January 15, 2021 decision was July 14, 2021. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until July 31, 2021, more than 180 days after the January 15,

2021 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 21-1190 is untimely filed. 

The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered a reason to 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).

2

Id. at § 501.3(e).
2

explain the failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to establish 

compelling circumstances.

The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date 

of their issuance.”

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-1190 is dismissed.

Issued: August 20, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

3

Id. at § 501.6(d).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED INCOME AND RETAINED EARNINGS AND THE STATEMENT
OF CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL CONDITION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997<F1>
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                          12,200
<SECURITIES>                                   121,800
<RECEIVABLES>                                  905,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (9,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          10,600
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,498,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        804,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       171,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     121,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,498,400
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                58,100
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,700
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   700
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,900
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,400
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,400
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>THE CORPORATION'S STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION IS UNCLASSIFIED,
THEREFORE, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CURRENT AND LONG-TERM ASSETS
AND LIABILITIES IS NOT AVAILABLE.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                       6,426
<SECURITIES>                                 4,665
<RECEIVABLES>                               72,077
<ALLOWANCES>                                (1,938)
<INVENTORY>                                 21,134
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           110,955
<PP&E>                                     234,382
<DEPRECIATION>                             (86,245)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             298,672
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       56,508
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    14,138
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                 222,235
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               298,672
<SALES>                                    176,363
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           176,363
<CGS>                                      119,668
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              119,668
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               468
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             21,510
<INCOME-TAX>                                 7,066
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         14,027
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                14,027
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .96
        















</TABLE>
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, LOS ANGELES 

PROCESSING & DISTRBIUTION CENTER,

Los Angeles, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0646

Issued: May 2, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On March 29, 2023 appellant filed an appeal from a September 10, 2021 merit decision

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 23-0646.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act.

1 For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s 

review authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance 

of OWCP’s decision.2

The 180th day following the September 10, 2021 decision was March 9, 2022. As 

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until March 29, 2023, more than 180 days after 

the September 10, 2021 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 

23-0646 is untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”
2

not explained his failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

establish compelling circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP 

within 180 days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed 

as No. 23-0646, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-0646 is dismissed.

Issued: May 2, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” Id.

at § 501.6(d).
#### In Re Petition of Sarah E. Shockley to Pay Money Into Court.

*Petition to Pay Money Into Court—Parties.*

The owner of land mortgaged the same to the State for money loaned out of the Superior Court, which had been paid in by the sheriff as applicable to a part of a recognizance, which provided the interest should be paid to a widow for life. Held, that the owner of .the equity of redemption in the mortgage should not be allowed to pay the money into court unless the person entitled to the principal and interest joined in the petition therefor.

*(April 30, 1898.)*

Lore, C. J. and Sfruance and Boyce, J. J., sitting.

*James H. Hughes*for the petitioner.

(There was no appearance in opposition.)

Superior Court, Kent County,

April Term, 1898.

*274Petition by Sarah B. Shockley, the owner of lands on which a former owner had made a mortgage to the State of Delaware for money that had been loaned on said lands out of the Superior Court, being a part of certain moneys that had been paid in by the sheriff as applicable to the one-third part of a recognizance on which, by the terms of the recognizance, the interest was payable to a widow during her life. The petition was to pay the money so borrowed into court.

The Court held that the money could not be paid in, as the petition was only that of the owner of the equity of redemption in the mortgaged premises and because the persons entitled to the principal and interest in the mortgage had not joined in the petition.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN FLOYD

No. 7310SC633

(Filed 10 October 1973)

Criminal Law § 161 — appeal as exception to judgment

The appeal itself constitutes an exception to the judgment and presents the case for review for error appearing on the face of the record.

Appeal by defendant from *Copeland, Judge,*16 April 1973 Session of Wake Superior Court.

The bill of indictment returned against defendant charges that he did, on or about 29 July 1972, unlawfully, willfully and feloniously distribute a controlled substance, heroin, to Arthur Manning at 709 Jamaica Drive, Raleigh, N. C. Defendant pleaded not guilty, a jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged, and from judgment imposing prison sentence of five years, to *581begin at expiration of sentences being served, defendant appealed.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan by William B. Ray, Assistant Attorney General, and William W. Melvin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.*

*Robert P. Gruber for defendant appellant.*

BRITT, Judge.

Although defendant’s brief contains no assignments of error, the appeal itself constitutes an exception to the judgment and presents the case for review for error appearing on the face of the record. *State v. Cox,*281 N.C. 131, 187 S.E. 2d 785 (1972); *State v. Harris,*14 N.C. App. 270, 188 S.E. 2d 2 (1972). “Ordinarily, in criminal cases the record proper consists of (1) the organization of the court, (2) the charge (information, warrant or indictment), (3) the arraignment and plea, (4) the verdict, and (5) the judgment.” *State v. Tinsley,*279 N.C. 482, 483, 183 S.E. 2d 669, 670 (1971).

In the case at bar, a careful review of the record proper fails to disclose either error of law or of legal inference.

No error.

Judges Parker and Vaughn concur.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-19-00135-CR

JIMMY WAYNE CARR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court

Lamar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 27817

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Stevens
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

After Jimmy Wayne Carr was found competent to stand trial by David Bell, Ph.D., he was 

found guilty by the trial court of possession of child pornography and was sentenced to ten years’ 

imprisonment.1 This case was tried with eleven companion cases, which are the subject of other 

appeals pending before this Court. Carr filed a single, consolidated brief covering eleven of the 

appeals, in which he contends that, since Bell’s qualifications do not appear in his report, there 

was insufficient evidence to find him competent to stand trial. 

The argument raised in this appeal is based exclusively on the argument brought before 

this Court in the companion appeal styled Carr v. State, cause number 06-19-00126-CR. In our 

opinion of this date disposing of that appeal, we found that Carr did not preserve his sole issue for 

appeal. For the reasons set out in that opinion, we overrule Carr’s sole issue as it applies to this 

appeal.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Scott E. Stevens

Justice

Date Submitted: December 30, 2019

Date Decided: January 9, 2020

Do Not Publish 

 1

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 43.26(a), (d).
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

August 29, 2003


In connection with the Quarterly Report of CEC Industries, Corp., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June
30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report"),
I, Brian Dvorak, Chairman of the Board, and President, of the Company,
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C. Section 1350), that to 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.



                                            /s/ Brian Dvorak
                             -------------------------------------------
                                             Brian Dvorak
                                          Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CertificationPursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

**AsAdopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Mrs. Fields Famous Brands, LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the 13 weeks ended June 28, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersignedofficers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,to each officer’s knowledge:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| August 18, 2008                |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|
|                                |   |
|                                |   |
| /s/  Michael R. Ward                |   |
| Michael R. Ward                     |   |
| Interim Co-Chief  Executive Officer |   |
| *(Principal  Executive Officer)*    |   |
| * *                            |   |
| * *                            |   |
| /s/  John Lauck                     |   |
| John Lauck                          |   |
| Interim Co-Chief Executive  Officer |   |
| *(Principal  Executive Officer)*    |   |
| * *                            |   |
| * *                            |   |
| /s/  Steven K. Passey               |   |
| Steven K. Passey                    |   |
| Chief Accounting  Officer           |   |
| *(Principal  Financial Officer)*    |   |

 

This certificationaccompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

A signed original of thisstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to Mrs. FieldsFamous Brands, LLC and will be retained by Mrs. Fields Famous Brands, LLCand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

----