alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.27



 Exhibit 10.27 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE 

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT (“FIRST Amendment”) is made by and between the Regents of the University of New Mexico, a body corporate of the
State of New Mexico, as Landlord, and Exagen Diagnostics, Inc., as Tenant. 
 WHEREAS, in May 2013, Tenant entered into a Lease with
Landlord for space at 800 Bradbury Dr.SE known as Suite 108 (the “Lease”); and 
 WHEREAS, Tenant desires, and Landlord agrees, to
Tenant’s First Option to Extend Initial Term and. 
 NOW THEREFORE, Tenant and Landlord mutually agree and covenant as follows: 

 

	 	1.	 Landlord and Tenant agree to extend the Lease Term for six (6) months by exercising Tenant’s First
Option to Extend Initial Term, pursuant to paragraph 3.02 of the Lease. The parties agree that the First Option term shall be reduced from one (1) year to six (6) months to commence June 1, 2014 and expire on November 30, 2014.



  

	 	2.	 All capitalized terms used, but not defined, in this First Amendment shall have the meaning ascribed to them in
the Lease. 


  

	 	3.	 Except as amended herein, all other terms and conditions of the Lease shall remain unmodified and in full force
and effect. 


 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this First Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.

  

					
	LANDLORD:    The Regents of the University of New Mexico
		
		 	 /s/ David W. Harris

	                	 	By:	 	David W. Harris
		 	Its:	 	EVP for Administration, COO & CFO
		
		 	 /s/ Bruce Cherrin

	                	 	By:	 	Bruce Cherrin
		 	Its:	 	Chief Procurement Officer
	
	TENANT:    Exagen Diagnostics, Inc.,
		
		 	 /s/ Wendy Swedick

	                	 	By:	 	Wendy Swedick
		 	Its:	 	Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operations Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1999 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          21,298
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,167
<ALLOWANCES>                                       295
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,304
<PP&E>                                           7,854
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,846
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  48,248
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,024
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           122
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,739
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    48,248
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,567
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,538
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (544)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,573
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,286
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,287
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,287
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09


</TABLE>
[ARTICLE] 5
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   6-MOS
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          DEC-31-2000
[PERIOD-END]                               JUN-30-2000
[CASH]                                         499,724
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                                  232,735
[ALLOWANCES]                                     4,000
[INVENTORY]                                     35,153
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                               871,384
[PP&E]                                      15,500,825
[DEPRECIATION]                              13,895,353
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                               2,476,856
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                          197,981
[BONDS]                                              0
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[COMMON]                                     1,071,610
[OTHER-SE]                                           0
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                 2,476,856
[SALES]                                        937,338
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                               971,691
[CGS]                                          575,657
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                  787,376
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                                 9,100
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                               2,465
[INCOME-PRETAX]                                172,750
[INCOME-TAX]                                  (13,125)
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                            185,875
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                   185,875
[EPS-BASIC]                                       0.07
[EPS-DILUTED]                                     0.07
</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

GREGORY LOFTIS, 

Defendant.

8:23CR126

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Continue Deadline 

for Filing Pretrial Motions. (Filing No. 47). The motion is unopposed by the government. For 

good cause shown, the Court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1) Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Continue Deadline for Filing Pretrial Motions, 

(Filing No. 47), is granted.

2) Pretrial motions shall be filed by October 6, 2023.

3) In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the Court finds that the ends of 

justice will be served by granting this motion and outweigh the interests of the 

public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Any additional time arising as a result 

of the granting of this motion, that is, the time between September 6, 2023, and 

October 6, 2023, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under 

the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant this motion would deny 

counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account 

the exercise of due diligence, and the novelty and complexity of the case. The 

failure to grant this motion might result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 

3161(h)(7)(A) & (B). Failing to timely object to this order as provided under this 

court’s local rules will be deemed a waiver of any right to later claim the time 

should not have been excluded under the Speedy Trial Act.

Dated this 6th day of September, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge 

8:23-cr-00126-RFR-MDN Doc # 48 Filed: 09/06/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 94
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 182 (Thursday, September 18, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54163-54164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21827]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[ES-956-1910-BK-5YMG; ES-055518 Group No. 181, Wisconsin]


Eastern States: Filing of Plat of Survey

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior

ACTION: Notice of Filing of Plat of Survey; Wisconsin.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plat of 
survey of the lands described below in the BLM-Eastern States, 
Springfield, Virginia, 30 calendar days from the date of publication in 
the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, 7450 Boston 
Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153, Attn: Cadastral Survey.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This survey was requested by the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs.
    The lands we surveyed are:

Fourth Principal Meridian, Wisconsin

T. 22 N., R. 3 W.


[[Page 54164]]


    The plat of survey represents the dependent resurvey of a 
portion of the subdivisional lines; and the survey of the 
subdivision of section 33, Township 22 North, Range 3 West, Fourth 
Principal Meridian, Wisconsin and was accepted September 5, 2008.

    We will place a copy of the plat we described in the open files. It 
will be available to the public as a matter of information. If BLM 
receives a protest against this survey, as shown on the plat, prior to 
the date of the official filing, we will stay the filing pending our 
consideration of the protest.
    We will not officially file the plat until the day after we have 
accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, 
including decisions on appeals.

    Dated: September 11, 2008.
Ronald J. Eberle,
Acting Chief Cadastral Surveyor.
[FR Doc. E8-21827 Filed 9-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P
#### BONNELUCQ v. BERNARD.

No. 19220.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

March 14, 1949.

Rehearing Denied April 11, 1949.

See also 33 So.2d 433.

Phil Trice, of New Orleans, for plaintiff and appellant.

Marion Seeber and Delvaille H. Theard, both of New Orleans, for defendant and appellee.

PER CURIAM.

' This appeal was taken by motion in open court, and the transcript was lodged with us one day prior to February 1, 1949, which was .the return date. On February 9, 1949, appellee moved for a dismissal of the appeal upon the ground that appellant failed to comply with the provisions of Act No. 217 of 1944. It is appellee’s contention that a copy of the motion for the appeal should have been served on his counsel of record in accordance with the provisions of sections 2, 3, and 4 of said act, and that the original motion should ■have been accompanied by a certificate showing that a copy thereof had been so served.

Regardless of whatever merit, if any, the motion to dismiss might have had if timely filed, clearly it comes too late and cannot be considered by us.

A motion to "dismiss an appeal because of a defect, informality, or irregularity which is not jurisdictional, and which does not strike at -the foundation of the right of appeal, must be filed within .three days after the return date. C.P. art. 886; Dart’s La.Dig., Appeal, par. 526.

The motion to dismiss is denied.

Motion denied.
#### John W. YOUNG, Commissioner of Labor, et al., Appellant, v. Clyde HALE et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Sept. 22, 1972.

Gemma M. Harding, Louisville, for appellant.

Barkley J. Sturgill, Harold J. Stumbo, Prestonsburg, for appellee Clyde Hale.

Fred G. Francis, Prestonsburg, for ap-pellee Island Creek Coal Co.

STEINFELD, Chief Justice.

Clyde Hale, a former coal miner, who since November 23, 1970, undisputedly has been afflicted with silicosis, applied for benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. His claim was disallowed by the board because he failed to prove exposure “ * * * to the hazards of the disease in his employment within this state for at least two (2) years immediately next before his disability * * a requirement of KRS 342.316(4). The circuit court reversed and remanded to the board with directions to find for the claimant. The Special Fund has appealed. We reverse.

The application for benefits shows mining employment as follows:

> “Stephens Elkhorn Fuel, Mantón, Ky. 1952 to 1962 Cutting Machine

> Carry Back Coal Co., Risner, Ky. 1969 nine months Repair Man

> Island Creek Coal Co., Printer, Ky. Feb. 1970 to Nov. 1970 Roof Bolter.”

His former employer, Island Creek Coal Co. filed “Employer’s First Report of Injury,” which shows that Hale worked for it for seven months. Other than medical testimony the only proof introduced was the tesimony of Hale. The questions and answers with respect to his period of work were the following:

> “Q6 Now, Clyde, what was the last day you worked in the coal mines ?

> A The 1st of October was the last that I worked.

> 07 In 1970?

> A Yes.

> Q8 Was that for Island Creek Coal Company ?

> A Yes.

> 3⁄8 3⁄8 3⁄8 3⁄8 3⁄8 He

> Q10 How long did you work for the Island Creek Coal Company?

> A I begin work there in February.

> Qll February when?

> A February, 1970.

> *502Q12 And you worked until October of 1970?

> A Yes.

> Q13 Now, have you worked for other coal companies before that?

> A Yes, I worked practically all my life —I worked about 21 years in the mines altogether.

> Q14 In coal mines in Eastern Kentucky ?

> A Yes, sir.”

The record does not show the exposure required by KRS 342.316(4) for an award of benefits as we have construed that statute in Inland Steel Company v. Terry, Ky., 464 S.W.2d 284 (1971). Young v. Jones, Ky., 481 S.W.2d 268 (1972).

The judgment is reversed with directions to sustain the decision of the board.

All concur.
EX-10.8





 Exhibit 10.8 

Amendment No. 1 to the 

License Agreement Effective October 15th, 2015 

between Stanford University 
 And

 Epinomics Inc. 
 Effective as of February 1st, 2017, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY (“Stanford”), an institution of higher education having powers under the laws of the State of California, and
EPINOMICS (“Epinomics”), a company having a primary place of business at 1165A O’Brien Dr, Menlo Park, California 94025, agree as follows: 
  

	1.	 BACKGROUND 



1.        Stanford and Epinomics are parties to a License Agreement effective October 15th, 2015 (“Original Agreement”) covering “ATAC-seq: Fast and efficient chromatin hypersensitivity mapping in small cell numbers using direct transposition” disclosed in Stanford
Docket S12-404. 
 Now, Epinomics has requested and Stanford has agreed to amend the Original Agreement to add an
invention entitled “ATAC-see: a method for integrated imaging and sequencing of the accessible genome” disclosed in Stanford Docket S16-007. 

 

	2.	 AMENDMENT 


  

	2.1	 The first sentence of Paragraph 2.9 of the Original Agreement shall be deleted and replaced with the following
sentence: 


 “2.9 “Licensed Patent” means Stanford’s PCT application Serial Number PCT/US2014/38825
filed May 20, 2014. US patent application Serial Number 62/306,504 filed March 10th, 2016, any foreign patent application corresponding thereto, and any divisional. continuation. or
reexamination application, extension, and each patent that issues or reissues from any of these applications.” 
  

	3.	 OTHER TERMS 


  

	3.1	 All other terms of the Original Agreement remain in full force and effect. 



 

	3.2	 The parties to this document agree that a copy of the original signature (including an electronic copy) may be
used for any and all purposes for which the original signature may have been used. The parties further waive any right to challenge the admissibility or authenticity of this document in a court of law based solely on the absence of an original
signature. 














 IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 1 in duplicate originals by
their duly authorized officers or representatives. 
  

			
	THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY
		
	Signature	 	/s/ Mona Wan
	Name	 	Mona Wan
	Title	 	Associate Director
	Date	 	February 13, 2017


  

			
	EPINOMICS INC.
		
	Signature	 	/s/ Fergus Chan
	Name	 	Fergus Chan
	Title	 	Officer
	Date	 	February 6, 2017
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

PERRION BLUFORD,

Defendant.

CASE NO: 4:23CR3056

DETENTION ORDER

The defendant is charged with a drug crime under the Controlled 

Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.), for which the defendant could be 

required to serve ten or more years in prison. On the government's motion, the 

court held a detention hearing under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). 

The court concludes the defendant must be detained pending trial.

There is a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of 

conditions of release will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance at court 

proceedings and the safety of the community because there is probable cause to 

believe the defendant committed a firearms felony and a drug crime under the 

Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.), for which the defendant 

could be required to serve ten or more years in prison. The defendant has not 

rebutted this presumption.

Based on the evidence presented and information of record, the court finds 

by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's release would pose a 

risk of nonappearance at court proceedings, and by clear and convincing 

evidence that the defendant's release would pose a risk of harm to the public.

Specifically, the court finds that the defendant has a criminal history of 

violating the law and court orders; violated conditions of release previously 

4:23-cr-03056-JMG-CRZ Doc # 21 Filed: 05/26/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 53
imposed by a court; has a history of harming or threatening harm to others; is 

addicted to drugs; lacks a stable residence; and has limited employment 

contacts; has failed to appear for court proceedings in the past. 

Conditions which restrict Defendant’s travel, personal contacts, and 

possession of drugs, alcohol, and/or firearms; require reporting, education, 

employment, or treatment; or monitor Defendant’s movements or conduct; or any 

combination of these conditions or others currently proposed or available (see 18 

U.S.C. § 3142(c)), will not sufficiently ameliorate the risks posed if the defendant 

is released.

Directions Regarding Detention

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or a 

designated representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to 

the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or held in 

custody pending appeal. The defendant must be afforded a reasonable 

opportunity to consult privately with defense counsel. On order of the United 

States Court or on request of an attorney for the Government, the person in 

charge of the corrections facility must deliver the defendant to the United States 

marshal for a court appearance.

Dated May 26, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Cheryl R. Zwart

United States Magistrate Judge

4:23-cr-03056-JMG-CRZ Doc # 21 Filed: 05/26/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 54
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-01-2000
<CASH>                                           2,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,312
<ALLOWANCES>                                       353
<INVENTORY>                                     13,945
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,170
<PP&E>                                          47,919
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,552
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  56,088
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,116
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,091
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,713
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    56,088
<SALES>                                         56,282
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                56,282
<CGS>                                           45,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   55,220
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     3
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   (5)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,718
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (659)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (264)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (395)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (395)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.19)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 182 (Thursday, September 18, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54170]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21742]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993 Wireless Industrial Technology Konsortium Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on August August 8, 2008, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 5 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Wireless Industrial 
Technology Konsortium Inc. (``WITK'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties to the venture 
and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications 
were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting 
the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances.
    Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties 
to the venture are: Airsprite Technologies, Inc., Marlborough, MA; 
Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., Austin, TX; Pepperl + Fuchs GmbH, 
Mannheim, GERMANY; Emerson Process Management LLLP, Eden Prairie, MN; 
Endress + Hauser Process Solutions AG, Reinach, SWITZERLAND; Software 
Technologies Group, Westchester, IL; Siemens AG, Karisruhe, GERMANY; 
and ABE Automation Products GmbH, Alzenau, GERMANY.
    The general areas of WITK's planned activity are to develop, 
implement, promote and distribute on a nonprofit basis one or more 
software communication stacks and supporting products, the first of 
which will be the WirelessHART Specification (HART 7) published by the 
HART Communication Foundation, and to encourage the use of such 
communications stacks and products on a standardized basis within, for 
example, the process control and factory automation communities 
worldwide, provided, however, WITK shall not carry on any activity not 
permitted to be carried on by a corporation that is exempt from federal 
income tax under Section 501(a) of the Code as an organization 
described in Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. E8-21742 Filed 9-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M