alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## 3.12 U
. S
. RESER VE ASSETS Millions of dollars, end of period 2002 2003 Asset 1999 2000 2001 June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov
. Dec. Jan. p 1 T

otal
................................. 71,516 67,647 68,654 74,696 74,751 75,307 75,860 75,499 75,690 79,006 78,434 2 Gold stock 1
............................ 1 1 , 04 8 1 1 , 04 6 1 1 , 04 5 1 1 , 044 1 1 , 04 2 1 1 , 04 2 1 1 , 04 2 1 1 , 04 2 1 1 , 04 3 1 1 , 04 3 1 1 , 04 3 3 Special drawing rights 2,3
................. 1 0 , 3 3 6 1 0 , 5 3 9 1 0 , 7 7 4 1 1 , 64 5 1 1 , 5 7 5 1 1 , 7 5 2 1 1 , 7 1 0 1 1 , 7 00 1 1 , 8 5 5 1 2 , 1 6 6 1 1 , 2 9 8 4 Reserve position in International Monetary Fund2
............................ 1 7 , 9 5 0 1 4 , 8 24 1 7 , 8 5 4 1 9 , 8 4 1 1 9 , 8 6 3 20 , 04 3 20 , 8 5 7 20 , 5 8 6 20 , 4 8 0 2 1 , 9 7 9 2 1 , 9 5 3 5 Foreign currencies 4
..................... 3 2 , 1 8 2 3 1 , 2 3 8 2 8 , 9 8 1 3 2 , 1 6 6 3 2 , 27 1 3 2 , 47 0 3 2 , 2 5 1 3 2 , 1 7 1 3 2 , 3 1 2 3 3 , 8 1 8 3 4 , 1 40

1. Gold held ‘ ‘under earmark’ ’ at Federal Reserve Banks for f oreign and international accounts i s not included in the gold stock of the United S tates; see table 3 .13, line 3
. Gold stock is valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce.

2. Special drawing rights ( SDRs) are valued according to a technique adopted by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in July 1974. Values are based on a weighted average of exchange rates f or the currencies of member countries. From July 1974 through December 1980, sixteen currencies were used; since January 1981, five currencies have been used. U
. S
. SDR holdings and reserve positions in the IMF also have been valued on this basis since July 1974.

3. Includes allocations of SDRs by the International Monetary Fund on Jan. 1 of the year indicated, as follows: 1970—$867 million; 1971—$717 million; 1972—$710 million; 1979— $1,139 million; 1980—$1,152 million; 1981—$1,093 million; plus net transactions in SDRs.

4. Valued at current market exchange rates.


## 3.13 FOREIGN OFFICIAL ASSETS HELD A T FEDERAL RESER VE BANKS 1 

### Millions of dollars, end of period
2002 2003 Asset 1999 2000 2001 June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov
. Dec. Jan. p 1 Deposits
.............................. 71 215 61 90 164 86 150 89 78 136 102

Held in custody 2 U.S
. Treasury s ecurities 2
................. 632,482 594,094 592,630 619,226 635,036 638,003 644,381 647,165 669,092 678,106 683,837 3 Earmarked gold 3
....................... 9 , 9 3 3 9 , 4 5 1 9 , 09 9 9 , 07 7 9 , 07 1 9 , 0 64 9 , 0 5 7 9 , 0 5 0 9 , 04 5 9 , 04 5 9 , 04 5

1. Excludes deposits and U
. S
. Treasury securities held f or international and regional 3. Held in f oreign and international accounts and valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce; not organizations included in the gold stock of the United S tates.

2. Marketable U.S
. Treasury bills, notes, and bonds and nonmarketable U.S
. Treasury securities, in each case measured at face (not market) value.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Civil No. 06-cv-421-JM

Kingston, NH, 43 Mill Road,

Margaret Pandelena,

Kingston, NH 10 Towle Road, and

Theodore Gagalis

O R D E R

The government has served a motion to strike the claim of

Margaret Pandelena. In effect, it is a motion for summary

judgment. Counsel for Ms. Pandelena has not yet responded but

has previously pled ownership by virtue of a deed to her as

trustee of the MJMG Realty Trust. Document No. 45-1. The record

is silent as to who the beneficial owner(s) of the trust are or

were. Neither party has briefed the basic issues raised by this

trust deed and they are directed to brief the following issues:

1. Who were the beneficial owners of the trust property?

2. Since the title to the real estate was held by Ms.

Pandelena as trustee of the trust, did the divorce

court have the power to award the real estate to Mr.

Pandelena?

a. if the beneficial owners included persons other

than Ms. Pandelena? or

Case 1:06-cv-00421-SM Document 49 Filed 04/20/10 Page 1 of 2
b. if she was the beneficial owner without a

requirement that she deed the property to him?

3. At best, did Mr. Pandelena acquire any title or right

or interest by the divorce decree?

4. Is any such right subject to payment by him?

5. Is service on Ms. Pandelena sufficient service on her

as a trustee(see Document No. 11)?

6. Does the deed give Ms. Pandelena standing as an owner

as trustee of the trust?

Forfeiture of Mr. Pandelena’s interest in real estate he

does not own under New Hampshire law would amount to nothing. 

Therefore, counsel are ordered to brief these issues by May 3,

2010, the date by which Ms. Pandelena’s objection should be filed

in any event.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: April 20, 2010

cc: Robert J. Rabuck, AUSA

 Rodkey Craighead, Jr., Esq.

 Alexander R. Cain, Esq.

 Brian C. Dauphin, Esq.

 Murat Erkan, Esq.

 Robert A. Shaines, Esq.

 Scott W. LaPointe, Esq.

2

Case 1:06-cv-00421-SM Document 49 Filed 04/20/10 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v.

Beverly Starr Dove

Criminal No. 06-cr-214-01-JD

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

7) filed by defendant is granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days. The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3131(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: March 7, 2007

cc: Jeffrey Levin, Esq.

Alfred Rubega, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00214-JD Document 8 Filed 03/07/07 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1712 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 1712

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 20, 2002

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make adjustments to the 
  boundary of the National Park of American Samoa to include certain 
  portions of the islands of Ofu and Olosega within the park, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT OF THE NATIONAL PARK OF AMERICAN SAMOA.

    Section 2(b) of the Act entitled ``An Act to establish the National 
Park of American Samoa'' (16 U.S.C. 410qq-1(b)), approved October 31, 
1988, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``(1)'', ``(2)'', and ``(3)'' and inserting 
        ``(A)'', ``(B)'', and ``(C)'', respectively;
            (2) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``Included.--''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(2) The Secretary may make adjustments to the boundary of the 
park to include within the park certain portions of the islands of Ofu 
and Olosega, as depicted on the map entitled `National Park of American 
Samoa, Proposed Boundary Adjustment', numbered 82,035 and dated 
February 2002, pursuant to an agreement with the Governor of American 
Samoa and contingent upon the lease to the Secretary of the newly added 
lands. As soon as practicable after a boundary adjustment under this

paragraph, the Secretary shall modify the maps referred to in paragraph 
(1) accordingly.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 19, 2002.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Rosemary A. Gilroy

V .

Ameriquest Mortga ge Compan ,

Civil No. 07-cv-74-JD

ORDE R

On July 23, 2007, the Clerk's Office forwarded service documents to the U . S. Marshal's

Office for service on both defendants. On September 10, 2007, a completed return of service was

filed as to defendant Ameriquest Mortgage Co . Also on that date, service was returned unexecuted

as to defendant AMC Mortgage Services, Inc . A copy of the unexecuted return is herewith attached.

Ms. Gilroy shall provide the court with a current address for AMC Mortgage Services, Inc .

Upon receipt of the current address, the Clerk's Office shall make service as outlined in my July 23,

2007 Order.

SO ORDERED.

September 10, 2007 /s/ James R. Muirhead

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Rosemary Gilroy, pro se

William Amann, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00074-JD Document 11 Filed 09/10/07 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
10.20





 


Fiscal
Year 2020 Officer Bonus Plan


 


The
Personnel and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Electromed, Inc. (the “Company”) has established
the Fiscal Year 2020 Officer Bonus Plan (the “Bonus Plan”) for officers of the Company, including its named executive
officers. The Bonus Plan is effective for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2020 and provides an opportunity for each participant
to earn an annual cash bonus based on Company revenue growth versus the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019 (subject to achievement
of threshold earnings before interest and taxes (“EBIT”)). The committee has established target payouts of 50.0% and
30.0% of annual base salary for our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, under the Bonus Plan. The
following summarizes the potential payments under the Bonus Plan:


 


		●	Company
                                         revenue growth below minimum performance will not result in any payouts under the Bonus
                                         Plan.






		●	Company
                                         revenue growth between minimum and target performance will result in a potential bonus
                                         payout starting at 50.0% and increasing in increments of 25.0% of the participant’s
                                         respective target payout for every whole percent of revenue growth in excess of minimum
                                         performance.






		●	Company
                                         revenue growth equal to target performance will result in a potential bonus payout equal
                                         to 100.0% of the participant’s respective target payout.






		●	Company
                                         revenue growth above target performance will result a potential bonus payout equal to
                                         100.0% of the participant’s respective target payout, plus additional increments
                                         of 8.0% of their target payout for every whole percent of revenue growth in excess of
                                         target performance up to 200%, and additional increments of 5.0% of their target payout
                                         for every whole percent of revenue growth in excess of 200% of target performance.



 


Notwithstanding
the foregoing, Company revenue growth also will not result in any payout unless EBIT also exceeds an established threshold amount.
Company revenue growth above target performance will only increase the resulting payout as a percent of target if EBIT also exceeds
an amount equal to the threshold EBIT amount plus an additional increment of 30.0% of threshold EBIT for every whole percent of
revenue growth in excess of target performance.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 05-cr-49-01-SM

Lena Bagaya

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 16) is granted

in part, denied in part. Trial is continued for 30 days to the June 2006 trial period. If, as

is represented, a diversionary disposition has been agreed upon, 30 days is more than

enough time to file a motion to dismiss. This is the fourth continuance request. Defendant

shall file a Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights not later than April 25, 2006. On the filing of such

waiver, his continuance shall be effective.

The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh

the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the

defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into account the

Case 1:05-cr-00049-SM Document 17 Filed 04/19/06 Page 1 of 2
2

exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: June 13, 2006 at 3:30 PM

Jury Selection: June 20, 2006 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

April 19, 2006 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Alfred Rubega, Esq.

 Jonathan Saxe, Esq. 

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00049-SM Document 17 Filed 04/19/06 Page 2 of 2
37

C.4. Average Fixed Interest Rates on Farm Loans

Percent

Feeder cattle Other operating Intermediate non-real- Long-term real

Quarter loans loans1 estate loans estate loans

Seventh (Chicago) Federal Reserve District (IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*)

2000: Q3... 10.1 10.2 n.a. 9.2

 Q4... 9.9 9.9 n.a. 8.9

2001: Q1... 9.2 9.2 n.a. 8.2

 Q2... 8.6 8.6 n.a. 7.9

 Q3... 8.1 8.0 n.a. 7.5

 Q4... 7.5 7.4 n.a. 7.2

2002: Q1... 7.5 7.3 n.a. 7.2

 Q2... 7.3 7.3 n.a. 7.1

 Q3... 7.2 7.2 n.a. 6.8

 Q4... 6.8 6.7 n.a. 6.5

 Tenth (Kansas City) Federal Reserve District (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY)

2000: Q3... 10.4 10.5 10.3 9.7

 Q4... 10.3 10.5 10.2 9.7

2001: Q1... 9.6 9.8 9.5 8.9

 Q2... 9.0 9.1 9.0 8.5

 Q3... 8.4 8.6 8.5 8.0

 Q4... 7.8 8.1 8.2 7.6

2002: Q1... 7.7 7.9 7.9 7.5

 Q2... n.a. 8.1 8.0 7.7

 Q3... n.a. 7.9 7.9 7.5

 Q4... n.a. 7.6 7.6 7.2

Ninth (Minneapolis) Federal Reserve District (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)

2000: Q3... n.a. 10.5 10.4 9.7

 Q4... n.a. 10.4 10.3 9.6

2001: Q1... n.a. 9.8 9.8 9.1

 Q2... n.a. 9.3 9.3 8.6

 Q3... n.a. 8.9 8.9 8.5

 Q4... n.a. 8.2 8.1 7.6

2002: Q1... n.a. 7.5 7.7 7.3

 Q2... n.a. 7.6 7.7 7.4

 Q3... n.a. 7.4 7.5 7.2

 Q4... n.a. 7.2 7.2 6.9

Eleventh (Dallas) Federal Reserve District (LA*, NM*, TX)

2000: Q3... 11.0 11.0 10.8 10.1

 Q4... 11.0 11.0 10.8 10.2

2001: Q1... 10.3 10.4 10.1 9.5

 Q2... 9.7 9.7 9.5 9.0

 Q3... 9.2 9.2 9.2 8.5

 Q4... 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.0

2002: Q1... 8.2 8.3 8.2 8.0

 Q2... 8.1 8.2 8.2 7.8

 Q3... 8.1 8.1 8.1 7.8

 Q4... 7.6 7.7 7.7 7.5
38

C.4. Average Fixed Interest Rates on Farm Loans (continued)

Percent

Feeder cattle Other operating Intermediate non-real Long-term real

Quarter loans loans1 -estate loans estate loans

Fifth (Richmond) Federal Reserve District (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*) 

2000: Q3... 10.6 10.6 10.4 9.9

 Q4... 10.5 10.4 10.1 9.8

2001: Q1... 9.4 9.4 9.2 8.9

 Q2... 8.6 11.0 8.5 8.3

 Q3... 8.2 7.9 8.0 7.6

 Q4... 9.9 7.2 7.2 7.0

2002: Q1... 7.0 7.1 9.4 7.3

 Q2... 7.5 7.3 7.5 7.2

 Q3... 7.3 6.9 7.3 7.2

 Q4... 6.8 6.7 7.0 6.7

 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of

livestock (including poultry).

 * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District.

 n.a. Not available.

 Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.
EX-10.37





 Exhibit 10.37 

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. 
 MedImmune Confidential 

AMENDMENT 2 TO SUB-LICENCE AND COLLABORATION AGREEMENT 

This Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Sub-License and Collaboration Agreement dated March 20,
2012 (“Agreement”) is entered into effective as of the last date of signature (the “Amendment Effective Date”), by and between MedImmune, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, with its principal executive
offices located at One MedImmune Way, Gaithersburg, MD 20878 (“MedImmune”) and Humabs BioMed SA. a limited company organized under the laws of Switzerland having its head office at Via Mirasloe 1, bellinzona CH-6500 Switzerland (“Humabs”). 
 Background 

WHEREAS, the parties desire extend the Research Term of the Agreement pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Agreement. 

NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 

 

	1.	 Definitions. Unless otherwise defined in this Amendment, capitalized terms have the meanings set
forth in the Agreement. 


  

	2.	 Research Term. The Research Term of the Agreement is extended until [***] unless sooner
terminated in accordance with the termination provisions of the Agreement or extended by mutual written agreement of the Parties. 


  

	3.	 Full Force and Effect. Except as set forth in this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the
Agreement remain in full force and effect. 


  

	4.	 Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which will be
deemed an original and all of which will together be deemed to constitute one agreement. The Parties agree that the execution of this Amendment by industry standard electronic signature software and/or by exchanging PDF signatures shall have the
same legal force and effect as the exchange of original signatures, and that in any proceeding arising under or relating to this Amendment, each Party hereby waives any right to raise any defense or waiver based upon execution of this Amendment by
means of such electronic signatures or maintenance of the executed agreement electronically. 


 The parties have executed this Amendment
to be effective as of the Amendment Effective Date. 

  

					
	Agreement Number: CW451495	  	1	  	















									
	MEDIMMUNE, LLC	 		 	HUMABS BIOMED SA
					
	By:	 	/s/ Ken Stover	 	    	 	By:	 	/s/ Alcide Barberis
	Name:	 	Ken Stover	 		 	Name:	 	Alcide Barberis
	Title:	 	Sr. Dir. Research	 		 	Title:	 	CEO
	Date:	 	27 April 2015	 		 	Date:	 	April 27, 2015
				
		 		 		 	HUMABS BIOMED SA
					
		 		 		 	By:	 	/s/ Davide Corti
		 		 		 	Name:	 	Davide Corti
		 		 		 	Title:	 	CSO
		 		 		 	Date:	 	April 27, 2015


  
 2.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Eduardo RIVERA-ROJANA, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 00-50526.

D.C. No. CR-99-03574-IEG.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 17, 2003.

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Eduardo Rivera-Rojana appeals the judgment of conviction following his guilty plea to one count of importing marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960.

His contention that 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 are facially unconstitutional is foreclosed by *United States v. Mendoza-Paz,*286 F.3d 1104, 1109-10 (9th Cir.2002), and *United States v. Buckland,*289 F.3d 558 (9th Cir.) (en banc), *cert. denied,*535 U. S. 1105, 122 S.Ct. 2314, 152 L.Ed.2d 1067 (2002). His contention that *United States v. Harris,*536 U.S. 545, 122 S.Ct. 2406, 153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002), overrules *United States v. Buckland*and *United States v. Mendoza-Paz*is foreclosed by *United States v. Hernandez,*314 F.3d 430, *as amended,*2003 WL 730663 (9th Cir. Mar.5, 2003). Rivera-Rojana also asserts that the indictment did not allege mens rea as to drug type and amount and is therefore deficient. As he acknowledges, this argument is foreclosed by our decision in *United States v. Carranza,*289 F.3d 634, 644 (9th Cir.2002).

AFFIRMED.

**

 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

STEVEN A. SWAN, )

Plaintiff )

v. ) Civil No. 1:06-cv404-JAW

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

Defendant )

ORDER

Petitioner Stephen A. Swan has filed tlree motions (Docket Nos. 22, 23 & 24). I now

enter the following rulings:

1.) Motion for Ruling on Previous Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is dismissed

as moot because there is no filing fee associated with this pleading. In the event it is determined

that Swan is entitled to court appointed counsel I will reconsider his earlier motion automatically

and he will in all probability qualify for court appointed counsel. In the event Swan ultimately

wishes to appeal any ruling of this court he will then have to submit a new motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis at that time. However, it would premature to entertain such a request

at this juncture.

2.) The motion for reconsideration re: Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED . In the event an

evidentiary hearing is ordered or if the interests ofjustice otherwise require the appointment of

counsel, I will automatically reconsider the prior motion. However, at this point in time there is

no statutory right to counsel and there is no reason for me to appoint an attorney.

3.) Motion to Bar Attorneys Colantuono and Morse. AUSA Morse has entered his appearance

as attorney of record in this case and based upon the pleadings filed to date there is no reason for

Case 1:06-cv-00404-JAW Document 25 Filed 03/13/07 Page 1 of 2
me to order his appearance stricken. The Order to Answer this petition is due on April 16, 2007.

As part of its answer, the Government shall include its formal response to this motion as well and

ruling on this motion is reserved until such time as the Government files its response.

So Orderecd

Dated March 13, 2007 /s/ Margaret J. Kravchuk

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:06-cv-00404-JAW Document 25 Filed 03/13/07 Page 2 of 2