alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.7.1


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO LICENSE AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment No. 1 to the License Agreement
(“Amendment”), having an effective , date of April 7, 2014 (“Amendment Effective Date”), is made and entered
by and between Ohio State Innovation Foundation, located at 1524 North High Street, Columbus, Ohio 43201 (“OSIF”) and
Microlin Bio, Inc., a New York based corporation located at 302A West 12th, New York, NY 10014 (“Licensee”).


 


BACKGROUND


 


OSIF and Licensee entered into a Patent
& Technology License Agreement dated September 6, 2013 (“License Agreement”) with respect to OSIF # A2014-0294;
and


 


OSIF and Licensee would like to amend and
modify the License Agreement as identified below and such amendment shall be incorporated as part of the License Agreement.


 


The parties agree as follows:


 


		1.	Definitions. All capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to
such terms in the License Agreement.



 


		2.	In Section 1, Patent Rights/Technology Rights shall be amended to include the information below:
	 	 	 



	
        App. No./

        Date of

        Filing

        [Tech ID#]
	 	Title	 	Inventor(s)	 	
        Jointly Owned?

        (Y/N; if Y, with

        whom?)
	 	Prosecution Counsel
	
        61/975,366

        April 4, 2014

        [2014-218]
	 	Lipid Nanoparticle Compositions and Methods of Making and Methods of Using the Same	 	R. Lee	 	x No	 	MacMillan, Sobanski, and Todd LLC


 


 


		3.	In Section 3.1(a), “Patent expenses due upon Effective Date” shall be amended to include the information below:
	 	 	 



	
        Patent expenses 

        due upon

        Effective Date
	 	Amount	 	
        based on invoices received 

        as of:

	Tech ID#2014-218	 	Current Estimate: $8,500 – invoice for 4/04/14 filing not yet received 	 	Reimbursement of past patent cost and future patent cost due upon Licensee receipt of invoice from OSIF


 




    	 1 of 3



    	 



    

 


		4.	Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original
and all of which together shall constitute an agreement, notwithstanding that all parties are not signatories to the same counterpart.



 


		5.	Continued Force and Effect. Except as provided in this Amendment, all terms, conditions, and provisions of the License
Agreement shall remain and continue in full force and effect as provided therein.



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have
entered into this Amendment effective as of the Amendment Effective Date.


 


[AUTHORIZED SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING
PAGE]


 




    	 2 of 3



    	 



    

 


	OHIO STATE INNOVATION FOUNDATION	 	MICROLIN BIO, INC.
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Timothy R. Wright	 	By:	/s/ Joseph Hernandez
	 	 	 	 	 
	Name:	Timothy R. Wright	 	Name:	Joseph Hernandez
	 	 	 	 	 
	Title:	President	 	Title:	CEO & President
	 	 	 	 	 
	Date:	4-8-14	 	Date:	4-10-14


 




    	3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

THUMB TOOL AND ENGINEERING, INC.,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 09-10986-BC

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

GOLDEN ALUMINUM, INC., GOLDEN

ALUMINUM EXTRUSION - PLANT CITY,

LLC, and GAE PLANT CITY, LLC,

Defendants.

______________________________________ /

ORDER DISMISSING APRIL 29, 2009 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On March 17, 2009, Defendants Golden Aluminum, Inc., Golden Aluminum Extrusion -

Plant City, LLC, and GAE Plant City, LLC removed Plaintiff Thumb Tool and Engineering, Inc.’s

complaint to this Court. Defendants contend that this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction is

predicated on the diversity of the parties’ citizenship. Dkt. # 1 at 2 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1)).

“[F]ederal courts have an independent obligation to investigate and police the boundaries of

their own jurisdiction . . . .” Douglas v. E.G. Baldwin & Assocs., Inc., 150 F.3d 604, 607 (6th Cir.

1998). “It is well settled that as a matter of statutory construction, diversity of citizenship requires

complete diversity between all plaintiffs on one side and all defendants on the other side.” Glancy

v. Taubman Ctr., Inc., 373 F.3d 656 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61,

68 (1996)). A corporation is “a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the

State where it has its principal place of business . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). The citizenship of

a limited liability company, however, is determined in a different manner. Homfeld II, L.L.C. v.

Comair Holdings, Inc., 53 F.App’x 731 732-33 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150

F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998) and Navarro Sav. Ass’n v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458, 464 (1980)). A limited

1:09-cv-10986-TLL-CEB Doc # 11 Filed 07/01/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 38
-2-

liability company’s citizenship is derived from the citizenship of each of its members. Id.

Because the pleadings did not identify the citizenship of each member of the LLC

defendants, the Court ordered Defendants to show cause why the Court retained subject matter

jurisdiction over the complaint. Dkt. # 9 On May 11, 2009, Defendants responded to the Court’s

Order, indicating that no member of either LLC defendant is a citizen of Michigan for the purposes

of diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. # 10. In light of the fact that Plaintiff is a citizen of Michigan,

Defendants have satisfied their burden by demonstrating that complete diversity of the parties exists

and that the Court retains subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint. See Glancy v. Taubman

Ctr., Inc., 373 F.3d 656 (6th Cir. 2004). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the April 29, 2009 Order to Show Cause [Dkt. # 10] is

DISMISSED.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: July 1, 2009

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on July 1, 2009.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:09-cv-10986-TLL-CEB Doc # 11 Filed 07/01/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 39
Case 2:09-cv-11541-DPH-RSW ECF No. 17-3, PageID.67 Filed 07/27/11 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:09-cv-11541-DPH-RSW ECF No. 17-3, PageID.68 Filed 07/27/11 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:09-cv-11541-DPH-RSW ECF No. 17-3, PageID.69 Filed 07/27/11 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:09-cv-11541-DPH-RSW ECF No. 17-3, PageID.70 Filed 07/27/11 Page 4 of 4
**EXHIBIT 14.6**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-129945,333-121164, 333-88854, 333-100522, 333-51446, 333-09368, and 333-1796 on Form F-4, S-8, F-3, S-8, S-8, S-8,and S-8, respectively, and in Post-Effective Amendment No. 7 toRegistration Statement No. 333-117110 on Form F-3, and inPost-Effective Amendment No. 2 on Form S-8 to Form F-4 toRegistration Statement No. 333-15409, of Kerzner International Limited andsubsidiaries of our report of Harborside at Atlantis Joint Venture Limiteddated July 29, 2005, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F ofKerzner International Limited and subsidiaries for the year endedDecember 31, 2005.

 

 
| /s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
|                          |
| Orlando, Florida              |
| March 28,  2006          |

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DANIELLE McQUILLEN,

 

Plaintiff(s),

Case No. 09-12461

vs. 

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

VITAMIN SHOPPE INDUSTRIES

dba Vitamin Shoppe,

Defendant(s).

_____________________________

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On today’s date the attorneys and parties of record placed a settlement

agreement on the record; 

This case hereby is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This case may be

reopened, if necessary, by motion of either party without the payment of additional fees

or costs. Alternatively, the parties may submit an order of dismissal with prejudice

upon consummation of the settlement.

SO ORDERED.

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: December 20, 2010

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record on 

 December 20, 2010 by electronic mail.

s/Marcia Beauchemin

Deputy Clerk
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-20-00252-CV

___________________________

Original Proceeding

County Court at Law No. 2 of Denton County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV-2020-00855

Before Bassel, Gabriel, and Kerr, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

IN RE USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Relator
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Having considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and all related 

filings, including real party in interest’s September 24, 2020 letter to this court, the

court is of the opinion that relief should be denied as moot. Accordingly, relator’s 

petition for writ of mandamus is denied, and we lift the stay previously ordered by 

this court.

Per Curiam

Delivered: October 1, 2020
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3861 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3861

               For the relief of Herman J. Koehler, III.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 18, 1996

 Mr. Young of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
               For the relief of Herman J. Koehler, III.

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

SECTION 1. RELIEF GRANTED.

    Herman J. Koehler, III, of Boonton, New Jersey, is relieved of any 
disabilities imposed upon him pursuant to section 922(g) of title 18, 
United States Code, as a result of his September 1990 conviction of a 
violation of section 371 of title 18, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
#### Patricia A. PRIESTER, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Scott G. PRIESTER, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 68676.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

June 25, *1996.*

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Aug. 15, 1996.

James L. Rohlfing, Brassil *&*Rohlfing, P.C., St. Louis, for appellant.

Sally Austin Mills, Colleen M. Hubble, Hayes, Heisler, Mills & Wynne, Clayton, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and GRIMM, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Father appeals from the circuit court’s order modifying a decree of dissolution. We affirm. The judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence; no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons *685for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 129094 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 129094 COA: 259671 Wayne CC: 94-001659-FY RAPHAEL P. STRADWICK, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 24, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

d1121 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2005

Clerk
Certification of Principal
Executive Officer
 Pursuant
to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 and
Securities and Exchange Commission Release 34-46427
 
 I, Daniel
L. Baxter, certify that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of 1st Home
Buy & Sell Ltd.;
 
 2. Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;
 
 3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
 
 4. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
 
 a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
 
 b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation;
 
 c)
disclosed in this report any change in registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting the occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;
and
 
 5. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 a) all
deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and
 
 b) any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.
  Date:
      February 19, 2008
              
              /s/ Daniel
      L. BaxterDaniel
      L. Baxter
                Principal
      Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

 

 ) 

CNH AMERICA LLC, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2:09-CV-10584 

 ) 

INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED 

AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND 

AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS 

OF AMERICA, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 ) 

 

 ORDER ON UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 

REASSIGNMENT AS RELATED CASE 

Upon consideration of Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Reassignment as 

Related Case, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. This case is hereby 

reassigned to the Honorable Judge Patrick J. Duggan. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED 

 s/Patrick J. Duggan 

 Patrick J. Duggan 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: February 23, 2009February 23, 2009 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record 

on February 23, 2009February 23, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Marilyn Orem 

 Case Manager 

2:09-cv-10584-PJD-DAS Doc # 7 Filed 02/23/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 218
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6971

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RANDY E. SELF,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (3:95-cr-00315-JFA; 3:05-cv-03458-JFA)

Submitted: January 25, 2007 Decided: January 29, 2007

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randy E. Self, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Scott Gasser, Assistant

United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, Sean Kittrell,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Randy E. Self seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Self has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
(LOGO)ERNST& YOUNG LLP   1300 Huntington Building 
                         925 Euclid Avenue 
                         Cleveland, Ohio 44115-1405     Phone: 216 861 5000





                 Report on Management's Assertion on Compliance
               with Minimum Servicing Standards Set Forth in the
            UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKERS

                        Report of Independent Accountants

Board of Directors
National City Mortgage Co.

We have examined  management's  assertion,  included in the accompanying  report
titled REPORT OF MANAGEMENT, that National City Mortgage Co. (NCM) complied with
the minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of
America's UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKERS (USAP) during
the year ended December 31, 1997. Management is responsible for NCM's compliance
with  those  requirements.  Our  responsibility  is to  express  an  opinion  on
management's assertions about NCM's compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on  a  test  basis,  evidence  about  NCM's  compliance  with  those
requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered  necessary in
the circumstances.  We believe that our examination  provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on NCM's
compliance with specified requirements.

In  our  opinion,   management's   assertion,   that  NCM   complied   with  the
aforementioned  requirements  during the year ended December 31, 1997, is fairly
stated, in all material respects.

                                             Ernst & Young LLP
                                             /s/Ernst & Young LLP               




January 28, 1998

       Ernst & Young LLP is a member of Ernst & Young International, Ltd.
EX-10.27



 Exhibit 10.27 
 



 
  
 Exhibit
10.27 
 13-JUN-2006 11:11 
 litos 
 +49 40 739243939   S.02

 703.777.3155   703.777.4338   www.K2M.com 

Nebcnabrede 
 zum Lizenzvertrag vom ... 
 Additional Agreement

 To License Agreement dated ... 
 zwischen 
 between 

Prof. Dr. Dietmar Wolter, Viehkaten 4, 22955 Hoisdorf/DE 

Prof. Dr. Dietmar Wolter, Viehkaten 4, 22955 Hoisdorf/DE 

naohstehend Lizenzgeber ganannt - 
 hereinafter referred to as the Licensor - 
 und der
Firma 
 and 
 K2M, LLC. 751 Miller Drive. SE. Leesburg. VA 20175, USA 
 K2M. LLC, 751 Miller Drive, SE, Leesburg, VA, 20175, USA 
 vertreten durch ihren Prasidenten 
 represented by
its president 
 nachstehend Lizenznehmer genannt - 

hereinafter referred to as the Licensee - 
 Die Parteien haben gleichzeitig mit dieser Nebenabrede eine Lizenzvereinbarung geschlossen, dcrcn vcrbindlichcr Auslegung dicse Nebenabrede gilt. 

The parties have concluded a license agreement at the same time as this Additional Agreement, and this Additional
Agreement has the purpose of defining the final interpretation of the License Agreement. 
 Zu § 7
Lizenzgebuhr 
 In re § 7 License Fee 

(1) Die Parteien sind sich einig, dass die Basis fur die Berechnung der Umsatzlizenzgebuhr 

(1) The Parties are in agreement that the basis for calculating the license fee based on 

751 Miller Orive SE, Suite F-1 Leesburg. Virginia 20175 







 



 
  

13-JUN-2006 11:11 
 litos 
 +49 40 739243939   S.03

 bei Verkäufcn an nicht-verbundene Unternehmen der von diesen bezahlte Verkaufspreis 1st—und nicht
der Verkaufsprcis, den diese nicht-verbundenen Unternehmen bei deren Endkunden erzielen. 
 turnover for sales to
non-affiliated entities is the sales price paid by these non- affiliated entities—and not the sales price achieved by these non-affiliated companies from their end buyers. 
 (2) Die Partcicn sind sich einig, dass für die emeute Verãußerung lizenzierter Gegen- stande, die von der Lizenznehmerin zurückgenommen wurden und für die
bereits einmal Lizenzgebühr gezahit wurde, nicht emeut Lizenzgebühr zu cntriohten ist. 
 (2) The
Parties are in agreement that Licensee shall not be obligated to pay license fees anew for the re-selling of Licensed Objects which had been taken back by Licensee and for which license fees have already been paid. 

Zur Aufrechterbaltung der vertrags- gegenständlichen Schutzrechte 

On Maintenance of Contractual IP Rights 
 Der Lizenzgeber betont, dass es in seinem elgencn Interessc licgt, alle vertrags- gegenständlichen Schutzrechte, deren Aufrecht- erhaltung wirtschaftlich sinnvoll ist, auch aufrccht
zu erhalten, Er wird zu diesem Zweck alle sinnvollen Anstrengungen unternehmen. 
 Licensor confirms that it is
in its own interest to maintain all IP rights which are economically worth maintaining. Licensor will exert reasonable efforts regarding this. 
 Hoisdorf, den 14.6.06 
 Leesburg, 12-06-2006

 [ELLEGIBLE] 
 [ELLEGIBLE] 
 Prof. Dr. Dietmar Wolter

 K2M, LLC