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



 EXHIBIT 10.32 

AMENDMENT TO LICENSE AGREEMENT 

Re: License Agreement, dated as of 03/01/2009, by and between Immuno Cellular Therapeutics as Client and Regent Business Centers Woodland Hills, LLC as
Licensor. 
 The above referenced Agreement is hereby amended subject to the following modifications or revisions. 

 

	1.	The term set forth in the Agreement is hereby extended. The renewal term will commence on 4/1/2010 and will expire on 3/31/2011. 


 

	2.	The Fixed Monthly Office Fee for the Renewal Term shall be $2,778.53 subject to any modifications and/or revisions, which may be agreed to by both Regent and Client.


 All capitalized terms used in the Agreement shall have the same meaning as set forth in and defined in the License Agreement.

 Except as set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the License Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

Agreed to: 

Dated:    4/1/2010 
  

			
	Client:
		
	By:	 	/s/ Manish Singh
	Name:	 	Manish Singh

  

			
	Regent Busienss Centers Woodland Hills, LLC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Flor Garcia
	Name:	 	Flor Garcia
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5273 

To permit a registered investment company to omit certain fees from the 

calculation of Acquired Fund Fees and Expenses, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 25, 2023 

Mr. GARBARINO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To permit a registered investment company to omit certain 

fees from the calculation of Acquired Fund Fees and 

Expenses, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO ACQUIRED FUND FEES AND 

4 EXPENSES REPORTING ON INVESTMENT 

5 COMPANY REGISTRATION STATEMENTS. 

6 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

7 (1) ACQUIRED FUND.—The term ‘‘Acquired 

8 Fund’’ has the meaning given the term in Forms N– 

9 1A, N–2, and N–3. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5273 IH

1 (2) ACQUIRED FUND FEES AND EXPENSES.— 

2 The term ‘‘Acquired Fund Fees and Expenses’’ 

3 means the Acquired Fund Fees and Expenses sub4 caption in the Fee Table Disclosure. 

5 (3) BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.—The 

6 term ‘‘business development company’’ has the 

7 meaning given the term in section 2(a) of the Invest8 ment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a–2(a)). 

9 (4) FEE TABLE DISCLOSURE.—The term ‘‘Fee 

10 Table Disclosure’’ means the fee table described in 

11 Item 3 of Form N–1A, Item 3 of Form N–2, or 

12 Item 4 of Form N–3 (as applicable, and with respect 

13 to each, in any successor fee table disclosure that 

14 the Securities and Exchange Commission adopts). 

15 (5) FORM N–1A.—The term ‘‘Form N–1A’’ 

16 means the form described in section 274.11A of title 

17 17, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor 

18 regulation. 

19 (6) FORM N–2.—The term ‘‘Form N–2’’ means 

20 the form described in section 274.11a–1 of title 17, 

21 Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regu22 lation. 

23 (7) FORM N–3.—The term ‘‘Form N–3’’ means 

24 the form described in section 274.11b of title 17, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5273 IH

1 Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regu2 lation. 

3 (8) REGISTERED INVESTMENT COMPANY.—The 

4 term ‘‘registered investment company’’ means an in5 vestment company, as defined under section 2(a) of 

6 the Investment Company Act of 1940, registered 

7 with the Securities and Exchange Commission under 

8 such Act. 

9 (b) EXCLUDING BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT COMPA10 NIES FROM ACQUIRED FUND FEES AND EXPENSES.—A 

11 registered investment company may, on any investment 

12 company registration statement filed pursuant to section 

13 8(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 

14 80a–8(b)), omit from the calculation of Acquired Fund 

15 Fees and Expenses those fees and expenses that the in16 vestment company incurred indirectly as a result of invest17 ment in shares of one or more Acquired Funds that is 

18 a business development company. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5942

Scosche Industries, 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 concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

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,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
* 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

October 7, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40450

Summary Calendar

 

COY LYNN OWENS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

SUZANNE HASTINGS, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(5:02-CV-67)

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

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Petitioner-Appellant Coy Owens, federal prisoner # 04702-078,

appeals from the dismissal with prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241

petition. Owens is currently serving a 210-month sentence on his

convictions for multiple counts of mail fraud, conspiracy to commit

mail fraud, aiding and abetting, and use of fire to commit a

felony. Owens argues that the district court erred in determining

that his defective indictment claim did not meet the criteria for
2

bringing a claim pursuant to the “savings clause” of 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255.

Owens’s reliance on Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848

(2000), and Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999), does not

satisfy the requirements for filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition.

See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir.

2001). Owens’s arguments that the district court should have

transferred his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition to us for consideration

as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and that the “savings clause”

constitutes a Suspension of the Writ, also fail. See ReyesRequena, 243 F.3d at 901 n.19; Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 452

(5th Cir. 2000). 

Owens has not briefed his arguments related to violations of

Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954), and the fair warning

doctrine. Accordingly, these arguments are abandoned on appeal.

See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.3d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). The

judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 73 (Monday, April 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19259-19260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9362]



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


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

KeyCorp; Notice of Application to Engage de novo in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The company listed in this notice has filed an application under 
Sec.  225.23(a)(1) of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.23(a)(1)) 
for the Board's approval under section 4(c)(8) of the Bank Holding 
Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843(c)(8)) and Sec.  225.21(a) of Regulation Y 
(12 CFR 225.21(a)) to commence or to engage de novo, either directly or 
through a subsidiary, in a nonbanking [[Page 19260]] activity that is 
listed in Sec.  225.25 of Regulation Y as closely related to banking 
and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, 
such activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    The application is available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing on the question whether consummation of the proposal can 
``reasonably be expected to produce benefits to the public, such as 
greater convenience, increased competition, or gains in efficiency, 
that outweigh possible adverse effects, such as undue concentration of 
resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interests, or 
unsound banking practices.'' Any request for a hearing on this question 
must be accompanied by a statement of the reasons a written 
presentation would not suffice in lieu of a hearing, identifying 
specifically any questions of fact that are in dispute, summarizing the 
evidence that would be presented at a hearing, and indicating how the 
party commenting would be aggrieved by approval of the proposal.
    Comments regarding the application must be received at the Reserve 
Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than 
May 1, 1995.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (John J. Wixted, Jr., Vice 
President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101:
    1. KeyCorp, Cleveland, Ohio, and Key Bancshares of Wyoming, 
Cheyenne, Wyoming; to engage de novo through Key Bancshares of Wyoming, 
in making consumer and home mortgage loans pursuant to Sec.  
225.25(b)(1) of the Board's Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 11, 
1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-9362 Filed 4-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
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-2018-0025-6566

Michel Sales Company, 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

_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
Exhibit 32



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 Mountain Bank Holding Company (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), we, Roy T. Brooks, Chief Executive Officer and Sheila M. Brumley, Chief Financial Officer, certify, 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 the operations of the Company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                       |  |                                           
|-------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|/s/    ROY T. BROOKS                   |  | /s/    SHEILA M. BRUMLEY                  
|Roy T. Brooks, Chief Executive Officer |  | Sheila M. Brumley, Chief Financial Officer
|                                       | 
|Date: March 15, 2005                   |  |
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-1799

___________________________

Matthew Jewell

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Miller County, Arkansas; Linda Rambo, Former Sheriff

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Texarkana

____________

 Submitted: September 18, 2012

Filed: October 15, 2012

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Matthew Jewell appeals following the district court’s entry 1

of final judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, in which he raised a failure-toThe Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the

1

Western District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
protect claim. After careful review, we agree with the district court thatJewell failed

to state an official-capacity claim against Linda Rambo or a municipal-liability claim

against Miller County, as nothing in Jewell’s complaint demonstrated that a

municipal policy or custom caused his injuries. See L.A. Cnty. v. Humphries, 131 S.

Ct. 447, 449, 452-53 (2010) (municipality is liable under § 1983 only if injury was

caused pursuant to its policy or custom); Crawford v. VanBuren Cnty., 678 F.3d 666,

669 (8th Cir. 2012) (official-capacity suit against government officer is equivalent to

suit against employing governmental entity). We also conclude that the district court

properly granted summary judgment as to the individual-capacity claim against

Rambo, because the record before the court did not reveal any trialworthy issue on

whether Rambo knew of but disregarded a substantial risk that Jewell would be

assaulted by other inmates at the jail. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 847

(1994) (Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim requires that inmate was under

conditions posing substantial risk of serious harm, and that defendant knew of but

deliberately disregarded risk). Finally, we conclude that the district court did not

abuse its discretion in denying Jewell’s motion for appointment of counsel. See

Plummer v. Grimes, 87 F.3d 1032, 1033 (8th Cir. 1996) (standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
----

----

| 1.     | Such      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008,      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except as otherwise noted in Item 4(A);      and                                        |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
| 2.     | The      information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for      the quarter ended March 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Universal      Fog Inc., except as otherwise noted in Item  4(A). |

| By:    | /s/ Sun,      XinSun,      XinChairmanChief Financial      Officer and Principal AccountingOfficer |
|-----------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: |   July      7, 2008 |
|--------|-------------------------------|
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2971

Price Pump Company:

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 the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

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,

Stephen P. Vaughn
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5476 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5476

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 1077 River Road, Suite 1, in Washington Crossing, Pennsylvania, as 
                 the ``Susan C. Barnhart Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 14, 2023

 Mr. Fitzpatrick (for himself and Mrs. Watson Coleman) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                             Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 1077 River Road, Suite 1, in Washington Crossing, Pennsylvania, as 
                 the ``Susan C. Barnhart Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SUSAN C. BARNHART POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1077 River Road, Suite 1, in Washington Crossing, 
Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated as the ``Susan C. Barnhart 
Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Susan C. 
Barnhart Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
----

----

| 1.     | Such      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A2 for the quarter ended March 31,      2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except as otherwise noted in Item      4(A); and                                        |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
| 2.     | The      information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A2 for      the quarter ended March 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Universal      Fog Inc., except as otherwise noted in Item  4(A). |

| By:    | /s/      Sun, XinSun,      XinChairmanChief Financial      Officerand      Principal Accounting Officer |
|-----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: | August      11, 2008 |
|--------|----------------------|
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Julio Martinez, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J.), rendered on March 2, 1989, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate prison terms of from 6 Vi to 13 years and from 3 Vi to 7 years, respectively, is unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account "among other things, the crime charged, the -particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we *365perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305). Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *Iv denied*72 NY2d 918). Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Carro, Milonas and Rosenberger, JJ.