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




EXHIBIT 4.9







June __, 2004




 


BioLineRx Ltd.


Hartum Street


P.O. Box 45158


Jerusalem, 91450


Israel


Attn:  CEO







Dear Sirs,








	
  

	
Re:

	
First Amendment of Research and License Agreement, Dated April 15, 2004, by and Among BioLineRX Ltd., Ramot at Tel Aviv University, Ltd and Bar-Ilan Research and Development Company Ltd. the "Agreement")








 




You have brought to our attention the fact that Section 9.1.1 of the Agreement (Licensor Confidential Information) has created a problem with respect to your ability to enter into agreements with potential contractors/collaborators and to attract investors.  Specifically, the provision states that your obligations of confidentiality and non-use (other than for the purposes of the Agreement) remain in effect during the term of the agreement, and for five (5) years thereafter.  As you have explained to us, potential contractors/collaborators are unwilling to be bound by such confidentiality and non-use obligations with respect to the Confidential Information (as defined in the Agreement) for such undefined term.  Therefore, in order to enable you to continue to develop Licensed Product (as defined in the Agreement) and to exercise your rights and fulfill your obligations under the Agreement, we hereby agree to amend the agreement as follows, effective immediately:







The following shall be inserted at the end of Section 9.1.1:







"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section 9.1.1, Bioline may disclose Licensor Confidential Information to actual and potential business partners, collaborators, investors, contractors, service providers and consultants, provided, in each case, that such recipient of Confidential Information first enters into a legally binding agreement with BioLine which imposes confidentiality and non-use obligations with respect to Confidential Information comparable to those set forth in this Agreement for a period of least five (5) from the date of disclosure of Licensor Confidential Information to such recipient."







All other provisions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged.







Please indicate your agreement to the above amendment to the Agreement by signing below.
















	  	  	
Sincerely,


	  	  	  
	
Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd.

	  	
Bar-Ilan Research and Development


	  	  	
Company Ltd.


	  	  	  
	
By:

	

/s/ ISAAC KOHLBERG

	  	
By:

	

/s/ GABRIEL KENAN


	  	  	  	  	  
	
Name: 

	

ISAAC KOHLBERG

	  	
Name: 

	

GABRIEL KENAN


	  	  	  	  	  
	
Title:

	

CEO

	  	
Title:

	

CEO




























Agreed to and Accepted:







BioLineRx Ltd.









	
By: 

	
/s/ Yuri Shoshan   /s/ Morris Laster

	  
	  	  	  
	
Name: 

	
Yuri Shoshan           Morris Laster

	  
	  	  	  
	
Title:

	
VP Finance           CEO
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-11689

Mascon, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2497

Valeo North America, Inc: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions.

pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-2169

JMW Sales, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
vadda_ex1006.htm


 







Exhibit 10.6


 


















First Amendment to Partial Assignment of Oil and Gas Leases dated February 24, 2009 between Mieka Corporation and Mid East Oil Company







Whereas: Under the terms of that certain Partial Assignment of Oil and Gas Leases (the “Assignment”) dated February 24, 2009 between Mid-East Oil Company (“Mid-East”) and Mieka Corporation (the “Mieka”), Mid-East assigned an 81.25% interest in certain Leases (as such term is defined in the Assignment) to Mieka subject to the terms of an ancillary Letter of Understanding (the “Letter of Understanding”) executed by the parties; and







Whereas: The Letter of Understanding sets forth the following terms in Section 1 thereof (referred to hereinafter as the “Drilling Schedule”):







“Mieka will be required to commence drilling at least one (1) well to the Marcellus formation within two (2) years of the execution date of the agreement.  Mieka will then be required to drill one (1) additional well every eighteen (18) months thereafter until a total of four (4) wells have been drilled.”







Now therefore, the parties hereby acknowledge and mutually agree:







1.           That the Drilling Schedule is hereby amended to remove the requirement that Mieka  drill additional wells subsequent to the first well drilled thereunder to maintain its interest in the Leases under the Assignment; and







2.           That, notwithstanding any requirement to the contrary in the Drilling Schedule, Mieka shall have no responsibility to drill additional wells until such time as Mieka should decide to do so, in its sole discretion.







The foregoing terms are hereby agreed to by and between both parties, Mid East Oil Company and Mieka Corporation, and both parties by their signatures below do hereby further agree that this First Amendment shall, to the extent that the terms hereof may conflict with the Assignment and Letter of Understanding, amend and supersede such agreements.








	
Mieka Corporation

	
Mid East Oil Company


	  	  
	  	  
	
BY: /s/ Anita G. Blankenship

	
BY  /s/ Mark A. Thompson


	
Its: President

	
 Its: President


	  	
6/28/2011
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3306

General Bearing Corporation:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
#### STATE v. L. D. ALLEN, JR.

(Filed 20 November, 1957)

1. Criminal Law § 26—

Suspension of the hearing of a case before the jury has been impaneled will not support a plea of former jeopardy.

2. Escape § 4—

Evidence *held*sufficient to be submitted to the jury in this prosecution of defendant for aiding and assisting a prisoner to escape with knowledge that the prisoner had escaped from the prison to which he was lawfully assigned.

Appeal by defendant from *Seaioell, J.,*June, 1957 Term, Johnston Superior Court.

Criminal prosecution upon a two-count bill of indictment charging (1) conspiracy with Hoke Smith to aid and assist him in escaping from a prison camp to which he was lawfully committed, and (2) the substantive offense of aiding and assisting Hoke Smith in the escape, having knowledge that he had escaped from the prison to which he was lawfully assigned. The Court withdrew the first count and the jury returned a verdict of guilty on the second. From a jail sentence of not less than 18 nor more than 24 months, the defendant appealed.

*George B. Patton, Attorney General, T. W. Bruton, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.*

*L. L. Levinson, for defendant, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The defendant’s plea of former jeopardy cannot be sustained. At the time hearing of this case was suspended for a short time for the consideration of other court matters, the jury had not been impaneled. Hence jeopardy had not attached. *State v. Brock,*234 N.C. 390, 67 S.E. 2d 282. The evidence was sufficient to require the submission of the case to the jury and to sustain the verdict.

No error.
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Steven J. Douglass, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Payless ShoeSource, Inc., aDelaware corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (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, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating 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 beingprepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information ; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: September 7, 2004                                                   /s/  Steven J. Douglass   Steven J. Douglass   Chairman of the Board and
f8k062711ex10xvi_suspect.htm


Exhibit 10.16


 


Execution Copy






Schedule 4.13







Directors of the Company








	
1.  

	
Mr. Shabtai Shoval








	
2.  

	
Suspect Detection Systems, Inc.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2746-2747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-624]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2747]]


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket Nos. TQ95-1-23-000 and TM95-6-23-000]


Eastern Shore Natural Gas Co.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

January 5, 1995.
    Take notice that on December 30, 1994, Eastern Shore Natural Gas 
Company (ESNG), tendered filing certain revised tariff sheets included 
in Appendix A attached to the filing. Such sheets are proposed to be 
effective February 1, 1995.
    ESNG states that the above referenced tariff sheets are being filed 
pursuant to Sec. 154.308 of the Commission's regulations and Parts 21, 
23 and 24 of General Terms and Conditions of ESNG's FERC Gas Tariff to 
reflect a reduction in ESNG's jurisdictional sales rates. ESNG states 
that the sales rates set forth the reflect an overall decrease of 
($0.4060) per dt in the Demand Charge overall decrease of (0.5370) per 
dt in the Commodity Charge, as measured against ESNG's Annual PGA. 
Docket No. TA95-1-23-000, et. al. with rates in effect as of November 
1, 1994.
    Further, the above referenced tariff sheets are being filed 
pursuant to Section 154.309 of the Commission's regulations and Section 
24 of the General Terms and Conditions of ESNG's FERC Gas Tariff to 
track storage rate changes made by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 
Corporation (Transco) and Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation 
(Columbia) where appropriate.
    ESNG states that copies of the filing have been served upon its 
jurisdictional customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protect said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426, accordance with Rule 211 and Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before January 12, 1995. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties 
to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a 
motion intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-624 Filed 1-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 41 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 11676]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5088]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[UTU-65356]


Utah; Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease

    In accordance with Title IV of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty 
Management Act (Pub. L. 97-451), a petition for reinstatement of oil 
and gas lease UTU-65356 for lands in Uintah County, Utah, was timely 
filed and required rentals accruing from October 1, 1994, the date of 
termination, have been paid.
    The lessees have agreed to new lease terms for rentals and 
royalties at rates of $5 per acre and 16-\2/3\ percent, respectively. 
The $500 administrative fee has been paid and the lessees have 
reimbursed the Bureau of Land Management for the cost of publishing 
this notice.
    Having met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as 
set out in section 31 (d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 
(30 U.S.C. 188), the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to 
reinstate lease UTU-65356, effective October 1, 1994, subject to the 
original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and 
royalty rates cited above.
Robert Lopez,
Chief, Minerals Adjudication Section.
[FR Doc. 95-5088 Filed 3-01-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-DQ-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3333

ECM Industries LLC: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_5-30-2019.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-40725

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE ARMANDO BAZAN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:16-CR-1376-4

Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Jose Armando Bazan appeals the 24-month 

sentence imposed in connection with his conviction for conspiracy to possess 

with the intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. For the first time 

on appeal, Bazan contends that the district court plainly erred in failing to 

award an offense level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 for having a 

mitigating role in the offense.

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 28, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-40725 Document: 00515014633 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/28/2019
No. 18-40725

2

Whether Bazan was a minor or minimal participant under § 3B1.2 is a 

factual determination. See United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 (5th 

Cir. 2005). Because this issue was a question of fact capable of resolution at 

sentencing, the issue “can never constitute plain error.” United States v. 

Fierro, 38 F.3d 761, 774 (5th Cir. 1994). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-40725 Document: 00515014633 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/28/2019