alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 182 (Thursday, September 18, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 54073]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21926]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

42 CFR Part 417


Health Maintenance Organizations, Competitive Medical Plans, and 
Health Care Prepayment Plans

CFR Correction

    In title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 414 to 429, 
revised as of October 1, 2007, on page 127, in Sec.  417.150, remove 
the definition of ``Health benefits''.
[FR Doc. E8-21926 Filed 9-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
EX-10.41





 Exhibit 10.41 

CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT, MARKED BY [***], HAS BEEN OMITTED BECAUSE IT IS BOTH (I) NOT MATERIAL AND (II) WOULD
LIKELY CAUSE COMPETITIVE HARM IF PUBLICLY DISCLOSED. 
  
 



 
 September 7, 2018 
 Eric
Victory 
 Vice President & Head for Cardiovascular & Metabolic Disease, Partnering & Strategy 

MedImmune, Inc. 
 One MedImmune Way 

Gaithersburg, MD 20878 
 Re: Amendment No. 6 to Sub-Licence and Collaboration Agreement 
 Dear Eric, 

As you know, Humabs Biomed SA (“Humabs”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Vir Biotechnology Inc., and MedImmune, LLC
(“MedImmune”) are parties to that certain Sub-Licence and Collaboration Agreement dated March 20, 2012, as amended (the “Agreement”). By this letter amendment (this
“Amendment”), Humabs and MedImmune agree to amend the Agreement as described below, effective as of the date first set forth above. 

Subclause (i) of Section 2.4 of the Agreement, as amended by Amendment No. 4 to the Sub-Licence and
Collaboration Agreement, is hereby amended and replaced in its entirety to read as follows: 
 [***] 

Clause 9.7.2 of the Agreement is hereby amended and replaced in its entirety to read as follows: 

“A Receiving Party may disclose the existence and terms of this Agreement and the Confidential Information of the Disclosing Party to its
attorneys and advisors and to potential acquirers in connection with a potential consolidation, acquisition, merger or similar transaction and to existing and potential investors or lenders of the Receiving Party, as a part of their due diligence
investigations, and/or to potential licensees and/or to potential collaborators and/or to permitted assignees, in each case under a written agreement to keep 
  





 

  
 1 













 of their due diligence investigations, and/or to potential licensees and/or to potential
collaborators and/or to permitted assignees, in each case under a written agreement to keep the terms of this Agreement confidential and to use the Confidential Information solely for the purpose permitted pursuant to this clause.” 

Any capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein will have the meaning ascribed in the Agreement. Except as expressly set forth herein, all
of the terms of the Agreement will remain in full force and effect. 
 Please indicate MedImmune’s agreement to the foregoing by having an authorized
representative of Medlmmune sign this Amendment in the appropriate signature line below. 
  

							
		 		 	Agreed and accepted:
			
	Sincerely,	 		 	MedImmune, LLC
				
	 /s/ Filippo Riva
	 	    	 	By:	 	 /s/ JoAnn Suzich

	Filippo Riva	 		 	Name:	 	JoAnn Suzich
	Managing Director	 		 	Title:	 	Vice President, Research
		 		 	Date:	 	07 September 2018

  
 



 

  
 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Northwest Bypass Group

v. Civil No. 06-cv-258-JD

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, et al.

O R D E R

The undersigned recuses himself from presiding over this

case. The case shall be assigned to another judge.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

September 5, 2006

cc: John P. Almeida, Esquire

Gordon R. Blakeney, Jr., Esquire

Daniel R. Dertke, Esquire

Bruce W. Felmly, Esquire

E. Tupper Kinder, Esquire

Samantha Klein, Esquire

Gregory H. Smith, Esquire

Case 1:06-cv-00258-JAW Document 30 Filed 09/05/06 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7020

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

PETER ROBERT JORDAN, a/k/a Pete, a/k/a Richard Mercer,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:04-cr-00058-HEH-1; 3:09-cv-00308-HEH)

Submitted: November 2, 2012 Decided: November 7, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Peter Robert Jordan, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Childs Ackley, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roderick Charles Young, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Peter Robert Jordan seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Jordan 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 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

BONNIE CRUICKSHANK-WALLACE AND 

WILLIAM WALLACE,

Petitioners

v.

CNA FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND 

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY 

AND COLUMBIA CASUALTY COMPANY 

AND JAMES S. TUPITZA, ESQUIRE AND 

TUPITZA & ASSOCIATES, P.C.,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 852 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

BONNIE CRUICKSHANK-WALLACE AND 

WILLIAM WALLACE,

Petitioner

v.

GERARD P. EGAN, ESQUIRE AND 

EGAN YOUNG LAW FIRM AND NEIL E. 

JOKELSON, ESQUIRE AND NEIL E. 

JOKELSON & ASSOCIATES,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 853 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 19th day of June, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal and 

Application for Leave to Amend/Supplement PAA are DENIED.
[852 MAL 2017 and 853 MAL 2017] - 2
#### MIDWEST DAIRY PRODUCTS COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONSOLIDATED COMPANIES, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 7267.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Jan. 6, 1949.

Stafford & Pitts, of Alexandria, for appellant.

White, Holloman & White, of Alexandria, and C. E. Laborde, Jr., of Marks-ville, for appellees.

KENNON, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in, La.App., 38 So.2d 266, the judgment rejecting plaintiff’s demands is affirmed, with costs.
[No. 34390.

Department One.

September 17, 1957.]

#### Betty Haase, *Plaintiff,*v. John Haase, *Defendant and Relator,*The Superior Court for Spokane County, *Raymond F. Kelly, Judge, Respondent.**1*

*Miller, Jansen & Sackmann,*for defendant and relator.

*Gleeson & Smith,*for plaintiff.

1

Reported in 315 P. (2d) 287.

Per Curiam.

This is a review by certiorari of an order denying a change of venue in a divorce action. The wife commenced the action in Spokane county. Two motions for a change of venue to Adams county were made by the husband. One was based on the ground that the wife was not a resident of the county in which the action was commenced, as required by RCW 26.08.030; the other was on the ground that the convenience of witnesses would be forwarded by the change. RCW 4.12.030.

We are unable to say from the conflicting affidavits from which the factual issues presented are to be determined, that the trial court abused its discretion in holding that the plaintiff wife was a resident of Spokane county, and that the convenience of witnesses did not require the change of venue to Adams county; hence,

The order denying both motions for a change of venue is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheet and statements of operations found on pages 3 and 4 of the
Company's Form 10-QSB for the year to date, and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             215 
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0 
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0 
<INVENTORY>                                          0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   215     
<PP&E>                                               0 
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     365     
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,229
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           125
<OTHER-SE>                                      (4,989)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       365   
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,999
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,999)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

MARKUS CLEVELAND,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

SARPY COUNTY POLICE, and OFFICER 

WALKEWIZC, Police Officer;

Defendants.

8:23CV164

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on its own motion. On May 25, 2023, the Clerk of 

the Court sent an order to Plaintiff in his other pending case, 8:23CV135, at his last 

known address and it was returned to this Court as undeliverable. See Filing No. 10, 

Case No. 8:23CV135. Plaintiff has an obligation to keep the Court informed of his 

current address at all times. See NEGenR 1.3(e) and (g) (requiring pro se parties to 

adhere to local rules and inform the Court of address changes within 30 days). This 

case cannot be prosecuted in this Court if Plaintiff’s whereabouts remain unknown. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff must update his address within 30 days. Failure to do so will 

result in dismissal of this action without further notice to Plaintiff. 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to set a pro se case management 

deadline in this case using the following text: July 3, 2023: check for address.

8:23-cv-00164-JFB-PRSE Doc # 10 Filed: 06/02/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 31
2

Dated this 2nd day of June, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Judge

8:23-cv-00164-JFB-PRSE Doc # 10 Filed: 06/02/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 32
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Rick Hebbard

v. Case No. 06-cv-362-PB

City of Dover, et al.

O R D E R

The parties have informed the court that they have reached an agreement to settle the

case subject to the approval by the City of Dover. In light of this agreement, the case shall be

removed from the trial list and all pending motions are denied without prejudice.

The parties are to file a status report in 30 days. 

SO ORDERED.

September 28, 2007 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 1:06-cv-00362-PB Document 29 Filed 09/28/07 Page 1 of 1
#### Walter Ariel GONZALEZ-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-70184.

INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 14, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Walter Ariel Gonzalez-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his applica*373tion for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence, *Pedro-Mateo v. INS,*224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.

Gonzalez-Ramirez contends that he suffered past persecution on account of political opinion. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s factual finding that, at most, Gonzalez-Ramirez established that he had been the victim of criminal activity in Guatemala. *See Bolshakov v. INS,*133 F.3d 1279, 1280-81 (9th Cir.1998). Because Gonzalez-Ramirez failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a statutorily protected ground, Gonzalez-Ramirez failed to establish eligibility for asylum. *See Singh v. INS,*134 F.3d 962, 971 (9th Cir. 1998).

Because Gonzalez-Ramirez failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Ghaly v. INS,*58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir. 1995).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States

v. 06-cr-71-01-02-SM

Elaine Brown

and Edward Brown

ORDER

Re: Document No. 72, Motion for Order to Suppress Evidence 

Ruling: As the government has responded that it will not

offer any evidence seized from the defendants or from defendants’

home on or about May 24, 2006, the motion to suppress is obviously

moot. (Defendants may be confusing a motion to suppress evidence

seized in violation of constitutional protections, that is, a

motion seeking an order preventing the government from offering

such unlawfully seized evidence against them during the criminal

trial, on the one hand, with a civil action for damages arising

from such a seizure, on the other hand.) 

 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief District Judge

Date: December 1, 2006

cc: William Morse, AUSA

Elaine Brown, pro se

Edward Brown, pro se

Case 1:06-cr-00071-SM Document 79 Filed 12/01/06 Page 1 of 1
#### Rengier *v.*Kunzler, Appellant.

*Wills*— Construction—Words *amounting to devise in fee*— Preca*tory words*— Act *of April 8,1888, P. L. Sec. 9*— Case *stated.*

On the hearing of a case stated to determine whether plaintiff had a fee simple title to land which she had agreed to sell to the defendant, it appeared that her title was derived under the following clause of the will of her husband: “I bequeath to my wife, R., My Whole Estate absolute, at her death to do as she knows what I would want her to do with my estate. I want my wife, R., to be one of My Executors, and my brother, J., to be the other one. Everything is to go on the same as when A. lived unless the Executors see otherwise.” *Held,*under Section 9 of the Act of April 8, 1833, P. L. 249, the devise was sufficient to pass the fee.

Argued May 19, 1914.

Appeal, No. 165, Jan. T., 1914, from judgment of C. P., Lancaster Co., April T., 1914, No. 69, on case stated in case of Rebecca D. Rengier v. Christian Kunzler.

Before *Fell,*C. J., Brown, Potter, .Stewart and Moschzisker, JJ.

Affirmed.

Case stated to determine title to land. Before Landis, P. J.

Tbe opinion of tbe Supreme Court states tbe facts.

Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appealed.

*Error assigned*was tbe judgment of tbe court.

*W. H. Keller,*of *Coyle & Keller,*with him *J. R. Kinder,*for appellant.

*T. Roberts Appel,*and *Charles C. Baker,*for appellee, were not beard.

*446July, 1, 1914:

Per Curiam,

This appeal is from a judgment entered for the plaintiff in a case stated to determine whether she had a fee simple title to land she had agreed to sell to the defendant. Her title was derived under the following clause of the will of her husband, Albert S. Rengier: “I bequeath to my wife, Rebecca D. Rengier, my whole estate absolute, at her death to do as she knows what I would want her to do with my estate. I want my wife, Rebecca D. Rengier, to be one of my executors, and my brother, John Stimen Rengier, to be the other one. Everything is to go on the same as when Albert Rengier, lived unless the executors see otherwise.” It is provided by Section 9 of the Act of April 8, 1883, P. L. 249, that “All devises of real estate shall pass the whole estate of the testator in the premises devised, although there be no words of inheritance or of perpetuity, unless it appear by a devise over, or by words of limitation, or otherwise, in the will, that the testator intended to devise a less estate.” Under this section the devise was sufficient to pass the fee. There was no devise over or words of limitation that show an intent to devise a less estate. The desire of the testator that his wishes, expressed to his wife only, should be respected by her in her disposition of the estate is without legal effect.

The judgment is affirmed.
Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer
                         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss 1350

         Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss1350, I, the
undersigned Chief Financial Officer of EduLink, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby
certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the
Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Michael Rosenfeld
---------------------
Michael Rosenfeld
November 15, 2002
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Stephanie Barrett

v. Case No. 06-cv-240-PB

Ambient Pressure Diving, Ltd.

O R D E R

All pending motions are denied without prejudice. The time

for responding to the complaint is extended until further order

of the court. Plaintiff shall have until October 27, 2006 to

file any motion to amend. A pretrial plan conforming to our

local rule shall be filed on or before November 13, 2006.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

September 27, 2006

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 1:06-cv-00240-SM Document 45 Filed 09/27/06 Page 1 of 1
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-22-00061-CV

Santos Valentin Ramos

v.

Taylor Leann Shafer

On Appeal from the

377th District Court of Victoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 20-01-85376-D

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

May 26, 2022
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Veterans Affairs

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Cemeteries and Memorials will be held November 18-19, 2008, at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center, National Harbor, Maryland. On November 18, the meeting will begin at 8 a.m. and end at 3:45 p.m. On November 19, the meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at 4 p.m. The meeting is open to the public.

The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the administration of national cemeteries, soldiers' lots and plots, the selection of new national cemetery sites, the erection of appropriate memorials, and the adequacy of Federal burial benefits.

On November 18, the Committee will receive updates on National Cemetery Administration issues. On November 19, the Committee will tour the historic Congressional Cemetery, located at 1801 E. Street in Southeast, Washington, DC, and reconvene at the hotel for a business session (beginning at 1 p.m.), which will include discussions of Committee recommendations, future meeting sites, and potential agenda topics for future meetings.

                    Time will not be allocated for receiving oral presentations from the public. Any member of the public wishing to attend the meeting should contact Mr. Michael Nacincik, Designated Federal Officer, at (202) 461-6240. The Committee will accept written comments. Comments may be transmitted electronically to the Committee at                     *Michael.n@va.gov*                     or mailed to the National Cemetery Administration (41C2), 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420. In the public's communications with the                           ( print page 54206)                        Committee, the writers must identify themselves and state the organizations, associations, or persons they represent.                

Dated: September 12, 2008.

By Direction of the Secretary.

E. Philip Riggin,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. E8-21805 Filed 9-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320-01-P