alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
reguslease_139142144xend






Renewal Agreement: THIS AGREEMENT HAS BEEN UPDATED PLEASE CLICK THE LINK BELOW TO VIEW THE MOST RECENT VERSION. > View Agreement Copy right © 2021, IWG Group Companies. All rights reserv ed. Reproduction in whole or in part in any  f orm or medium without express written permission of  IWG Group Companies is prohibited. Agreement Date : 9 November 2021 Confirmation No : R-2020266 Business Centre Details London - London Bridge Client Details Company Name VERONA PHARMA PLC Phone +44 20 3223 4200 Email paula.siu@veronapharma.com Service Provision : Start Date 1 March 2022 End Date 28 February 2023 This w ebsite is secure. Your personal details are protected at all times. Print Agreement   Office Payment Details (exc.VAT and exc. services) Office Number Number of people Price per Office 142 2 £ 2,255.00 144 6 £ 6,837.00 139 4 £ 2,759.00 All agreements end on the last calendar day of the month. Terms and Conditions We are IW Group Services (UK) Limited, please click the link below  for terms and conditions. By signing our service Agreement, you agree to authorize Colliers International Rating UK LLP, as managing representative of IW Group Services (UK) Limited, to act on your behalf in connection w ith all business rates matters relating to IW Group Services (UK) Ltd managed property. This includes the payment of business rates and application of reliefs (including Small Business Rate Relief). Any business rates overpayments should be refunded to the payee ‘IW Group Services (UK) Ltd’ w ith all business rates correspondence sent C/O Rate Account Management, Colliers International, 50 George Street, London, W1U 7GA. Dow nload the terms and conditions Dow nload the house rules
# C_2007255EN.01003101.xml

| 27.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/31

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4889 — Barclays Industrial Investments/Gemeaz/Scapa)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 255/05)

On 26 September 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4889. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4889. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
#### DEBRA JEAN MANOR, Appellant, v. SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 11101

November 9, 1978

585 P.2d 1337

*Reid & Aiverson,*Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *George E. Holt,*District Attorney, and *Stanley W. Parry,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

On the authority of, and for the same reasons stated in Franklin v. Sheriff, 94 Nev. 676, 585 P.2d 1336 (1978), the order of the trial court which denied Debra Jean Manor’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is reversed, and this case is remanded with instructions to grant the petition.
acer-ex1030_571.htm



Exhibit 10.30

SECOND AMENDMENT

 


				
	
DATE:
	
November 17, 2021
	
 
	
(“Effective Date”)

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
BETWEEN
	
Acer Therapeutics Inc.
	
 
	
(“Tenant”)

	
 
	
1000 NW Wall Street Suite 220
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
Bend, OR 97701
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
AND
	
Eastern Western Corp.
	
 
	
(“Landlord”)

	
 
	
P.O. Box 3228
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
Portland, Oregon 97208-3228
	
 
	
 




 

RECITALS:

 

A.Landlord and Tenant are parties to that NNN Office Lease dated February 4, 2018 (the “Lease”), pertaining to certain premises located at 1000 NW Wall Street, Suite 220, Bend, Oregon, which is more particularly described in the Lease.  

 

B.Landlord and Tenant desire to amend the Lease subject to the terms and conditions set out below in this Second Amendment (this “Amendment”).

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth in this Amendment, the parties agree as follows.

AGREEMENT:

 

1.Renewal Term. The Lease shall be extended for a 1-month term commencing on May 1, 2018 and expiring June 30, 2022.

 

2.Rent. Tenant’s Premises is 3,677 RSF Tenant’s rent shall be $7,485.71 plus NNN’s. 

 

3.Option to Extend.  If ACER-001 is approved by the FDA in June 2022, tenant will sign a 5 year lease with 2 years static rental rates and 3 years with 4% increases and 5 months free rent up front, starting with July 2022. If ACER-001 is not approved tenant will sign a 3 year lease with one year static rental rates and 2 years with 4% increases and 3 months free rent up front, starting with July 2022.        

 

4.Entire Agreement/Effect of Agreement.  This Amendment sets out the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Amendment and supersedes any and all prior understandings and agreements, whether written or oral, between the parties with respect to such subject matter.  All other terms and obligations not expressly set forth or modified in this Amendment shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect according to the Lease.  If the terms of the Lease and this Amendment conflict this Amendment shall control.  

 

 

 

 

[signature page follows]

1 | 1000 WALL AMENDMENT AGREEMENT



 

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but all of which will constitute a single agreement.  Facsimile, scanned and emailed or electronic signatures will be treated as original signatures.  At the request of any party, an originally executed document will be mailed following the sending of any facsimile or scanned and emailed version.

 

LANDLORD:TENANT:

 

Eastern Western Corp., LLCAcer Therapeutics Inc.


	
an Oregon Corporation. 
	





 


				
	
By:   /s/Michael E. McGinley             
	
 
	
By:  /s/ Chris Schelling

	
 
	
Michael E. McGinley, President
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
Title:  CEO / Founder                                               




 

2 | 1000 WALL AMENDMENT
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                          CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG AB

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (File No. 333-31076) and Form S-3 (File No. 40936) of Private Media
Group, Inc. of our report dated April 10, 2001, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Private Media Group, Inc. included in this Annual Report
(Form 10-KSB) as of December 31, 2000 and for each of the two years in the
period ended December 31, 2000.

Stockholm, Sweden
April 16, 2001

Ernst & Young AB


/s/ Tom Bjorklund
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 12
                         JOSTENS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
          COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                            Six        Year
                             Nine months ended                        Years ended                      months ended   ended
                         ---------------------------  -----------------------------------------------  ------------  --------
                         September 29, September 30,  December 31, January 1,  January 2,  January 3,  December 28,  June 30,
Dollars in thousands         2001         2000           2000       2000          1999        1998         1996        1996
----------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------  ------------  --------
<S>                      <C>           <C>            <C>          <C>         <C>        <C>          <C>           <C>
Earnings
Income from continuing
operations before
income taxes               $ 18,536     $    167      $  2,160     $ 74,659     $ 83,520   $ 93,383     $     26     $ 87,479

Interest expense
(excluding capitalized
interest)                    60,570       37,666        60,252        7,486        7,026      6,866        4,330        9,403

Portion of rent expense
under long-term
operating leases
representative of an
interest factor                 943          891         1,121        1,483        1,233      2,133        1,070        2,103
                          --------------------------  -----------------------------------------------  ------------  --------
Total earnings             $ 80,049     $ 38,724      $ 63,533     $ 83,628     $ 91,779   $102,382     $  5,426     $ 98,985
                          ==========================  ===============================================  ============  ========

Fixed charges
Interest expense
(including capitalized
interest)                  $ 60,570     $ 37,666      $ 60,252     $  7,887     $  7,729   $  6,866     $  4,330     $  9,403

Portion of rent expense
under long-term
operating leases
representative of an
interest factor                 943          891         1,121        1,483        1,233      2,133        1,070        2,103
                          --------------------------  -----------------------------------------------  ------------  --------
Total fixed charges        $ 61,513     $ 38,557      $ 61,373     $  9,370     $  8,962   $  8,999     $  5,400     $ 11,506
                          ==========================  ===============================================  ============  ========

Ratio of earnings
to fixed charges                1.3          1.0           1.0          8.9         10.2       11.4          1.0          8.6
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1776

In Re: ALAN J. CILMAN, Debtor,

----------------------- ALAN J. CILMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARIN COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Child Support Enforcement, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-03-272-A; BK-01-12387; AP-02-08114-RGM) Submitted: December 18, 2003 Decided: January 14, 2004 Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alan J. Cilman, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Osborne Barnard, Edward Meade Macon, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Tex Ritter, DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES, Novato, California, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:- 2 - Alan J. Cilman appeals from the district court’s order affirming the order of the bankruptcy court dismissing without prejudice his complaint against the Virginia Department of Social Services and the Department of Child Support Services for the County of Marin, California. Because the action was dismissed without prejudice, it is not appealable. SeeDomino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers’ Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). A dismissal without prejudice is a final order only if “‘no amendment [in the complaint] could cure the defects in the plaintiff’s case.’” Id. at 1067 (quoting Coniston Corp. v. Village of Hoffman Estates , 844 F.2d 461, 463 (7th Cir. 1988)). In ascertaining whether a dismissal without prejudice is reviewable in this court, the court must determine “whether the plaintiff could save his action by merely amending his complaint.” Domino Sugar , 10 F.3d at 1066-67. In this case, Cilman may move in the bankruptcy court to reopen his case and to file an amended complaint in which he may be able to assert claims not barred by sovereign immunity. Therefore, the dismissal order is not appealable. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

STATEMENT

Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. 1350, the
undersigned officer of Mercury Air Group, Inc. (the
Company) hereby certifies that to the knowledge of
the undersigned:



| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (3) The Companys Quarterly Report on
    Form 10-Q for the three month period ended
    September 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of
    sections 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
    Exchange Act of 1934, and
|
| | (4) The information contained in the report
    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                               



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ Robert Schlax      
| |                        
| | Robert Schlax          
| | Chief Financial Officer

January 12, 2004
1 The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. ___________ No. 95-1517

___________ Arthur Derby, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the John Lambert; Horn, C/O; * Southern District of Iowa. Mapes, C/O; Robert Washington; * John Emmett, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: February 13, 1996 Filed: February 23, 1996

___________ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Arthur Derby, an Iowa inmate, appeals the district court's 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit. He contended that while he was in disciplinary segregation, defendant prison officials violated his First Amendment rights when they confiscated his rosary because it had an attached plastic crucifix. The district court stated that Derby's rosary was "essentially the same" as the rosary found to be a security risk in Mark v. Nix , 983 F.2d 138 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam), and concluded that, as in Mark , defendants' confiscation of a hard plastic crucifix they reasonably believed to be a security risk did not violate Derby's rights.-2- We have examined the parties' submissions, including the rosary and crucifix submitted to the district court by Derby. We conclude that our decision in Mark controls the outcome of this case. Because an opinion would thus lack precedential value, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Larry STRADLEY, Appellant, v. Richard R. ANDERSEN, as Chief of the Division of Police, Department of Public Safety, City of Omaha, Nebraska, Appellee.

No. 71-1363.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Feb. 29, 1972.

*1064Bennett G. Hornstein, Stanley A. Krieger, Bruce G. Mason, Omaha, Neb., for appellant.

James E. Fellows, Kent N. Whinnery, Omaha, Neb., for appellee.

Before MATTHES, Chief Judge, and LAY and ROSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellant brought this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging „ deprivation of his constitutional rights by the order of his employer, the Omaha Police Division, governing the length and style of hair and mustaches of Omaha police officers. The district court, Judge Denney, after hearing the evidence of the parties, dismissed the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies through union contract and statutory grievance procedures, and for reasons of comity inhering in the abstention doctrine. Stradley v. Andersen, 334 F.Supp. 72 (D.Neb.1971).

In this case, however, the “right alleged is . . . plainly federal in origin and nature, no underlying issue of state law [is] controlling, . . . [n]or is the federal right in any way entangled in a skein of state law that must be untangled before the federal case can proceed.” McNeese v. Board of Educ., 373 U.S. 668, 674, 83 S.Ct. 1433, 1437, 10 L.Ed.2d 622 (1963). The law is well-settled that in such cases the very purpose of § 1983 precludes forcing a forum choice on the plaintiff by requiring exhaustion of the state’s avenues of litigation. Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 92 S.Ct. 407, 409-410, 30 L. Ed.2d 418 (1971); Houghton v. Shafer, 392 U.S. 639, 88 S.Ct. 2119, 20 L.Ed.2d 1319 (1968); Damico v. California, 389 U.S. 416, 88 S.Ct. 526, 19 L.Ed.2d 647 (1967); McNeese v. Board of Educ., *supra;*Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961). The same reasoning makes it improper to abstain in this case. Wisconsin v. Con-stantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 439, 91 S.Ct. 507, 27 L.Ed.2d 515 (1971). The special circumstances attendant to enjoining a state prosecution are not present here and thus the district court’s reliance on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971) is misplaced.

Reversed and remanded for a trial on the merits.
#### MELVIN L. CRANFORD, Appellant, v. SHERIFF, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 8311

September 8, 1975

539 P.2d 1215

[Rehearing denied September 29, 1975]

*552
      *Horace R. Goff,*State Public Defender, Carson City, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *George G. Holden,*District Attorney, Lander County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Following an altercation at “an apartment” in Battle Mountain, Melvin Cranford was charged with and ordered to stand trial for (1) assault and battery with intent to kill; (2) use of a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime; and, (3) being an ex-felon in possession of a firearm.

Two pretrial petitions for habeas corpus were filed. The first contended there was insufficient evidence adduced at the preliminary examination to establish probable cause to hold Cran-ford for trial. The second habeas petition was directed to the question of the admissibility of incriminating evidence, which Cranford claims was illegally obtained because his warrantless arrest was constitutionally void. Both habeas petitions were denied in a single order and this appeal follows.

1. The probable cause challenge to counts 1 and 2 is without merit. At this juncture we need not and do not decide whether the evidence before the magistrate would support a conviction. Cf. McDonald v. Sheriff, 89 Nev. 326, 512 P.2d 774 (1973).

2. Count 3 charges Cranford with being an ex-felon in *553possession of a firearm. The state offered neither probative nor demonstrable evidence that Cranford was an ex-felon; therefore, the charge cannot stand.

3. *“The motion to suppress*is the remedy normally used to preclude the introduction of evidence at trial which is claimed to be inadmissible for constitutional reasons, and is the remedy contemplated by our criminal code . . . This *is the procedure to be utilized*when an accused wishes to challenge the admissibility of evidence on constitutional grounds.” Cook v. State, 85 Nev. 692, 694-695, 462 P.2d 523, 526 (1969). (Emphasis added.) The appeal from the second habeas petition is dismissed, without prejudice to Cranford’s right to timely pursue a motion to suppress. NRS 174.125; *Cook, supra;*Prescott v. State, 85 Nev. 448, 456 P.2d 450 (1969).

The order of the trial court denying the first habeas petition is reversed as to count 3; as to counts 1 and 2, it is affirmed.
**CERTIFICATION      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | • | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the quarter                ended                September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission                (the “Report”), 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 Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|---------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:              December 15, 2005                                                            |   |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                                                                                 |   |   |   |
|                                                                                                 |   |   |   |
| /s/ Keith                        WalzKeith                WalzChief                Financial Officer |   |   |        |
| (Principal              Financial Officer)                                                           |   |   |   |