alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.45


Richard Gabriel
CEO and President
DNAPrint genomics, Inc.
900 Cocoanut Avenue
Sarasota, FL 34236

RE:  Termination of License Agreement between DNAPrint genomics, Inc.
     and The Penn State Research Foundation effective July 25, 2002.


Dear Mr. Gabriel:

             DNAPrint genomics, Inc. and The Penn State Research Foundation
(PSRF) entered into a License Agreement effective on July 25, 2002. You notified
us in an email dated February 4, 2004 that you would like to terminate the
License Agreement as soon as possible.

             Paragraph 14.1 of the License Agreement states that "LICENSEE shall
have the right to terminate this Agreement at any time on six (6) months' notice
to PSRF, and upon payment of all amounts due PSRF through the effective date of
the termination." However, PSRF and DNAPrint genomics, Inc. agree that the
License Agreement will terminate effective upon the date of last signature
herein and upon the return of the samples described in Appendix B (attached) to
Professor Mark Shriver.

             The Pennsylvania State University and the Penn State Research
Foundation look forward to future interaction with DNAPrint genomics, Inc.

                                 Sincerely,

                                 Ronald J. Huss

AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED:

DNAPRINT GENOMICS, INC.                 THE PENN STATE RESEARCH
                                        FOUNDATION

By:                                     By:
    -----------------------------           ---------------------------------

Name:                                   Name:
     ----------------------------             -------------------------------

Title:                                  Title:
      ---------------------------              ------------------------------

Date:                                   Date:
      ---------------------------             -------------------------------
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 9Federal Reserve Bank of: MinneapolisFilings received during the week ending November 19, 2011FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodCITIZENS STATE BANCSHARES, INC.                                                                                         CICChange in control notice by James E. Gaarder, Ossining, New York, to retain 25% or more of the shares of Citizens State Bancshares, Inc., Lankin, North Dakota, and thereby indirectly retain control of Citizens State Bank of Lankin, Lankin, North Dakota.Newspaper: 11/21/2011Federal Register: 11/21/2011MINNWEST CORPORATION                                                                                                    CICChange in Control Notice by Danita ("Kita") Louise McVay, Minneapolis, Minnesota, as executor of the M.D. McVay Estate, and Trustee of the Mary M. McVay Family Trust, the Elizabeth McVay Greene Irrevocable Trust, and the Marianna Marcelle Greene Irrevocable Trust, to retain 25% or more of the shares of Minnwest Corporation, Minnetonka, Minnesota. Jenny Lynn Verner, Victoria, Minnesota, Zachary Miller Zacek, Chicago, Illinois, Elizabeth McVay Greene, Brooklyn, New York, and Marianna Marcelle Greene, Minneapolis, Minnesota, to join the McVay Family Group, which controls 25% or more of the shares of  Minnwest Corporation, Minnetonka, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly retain control of Minnwest Bank, M.V., Redwood Falls, Minnesota, Minnwest Bank South, Tracy, Minnesota, Minnwest Bank Luverne, Luverne, Minnesota, Minnwest Bank Central, Montevideo, Minnesota, Minnwest Bank Metro, Eagan, Minnesota, and Minnwest Bank Sioux Falls, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not available
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Kimbrough, Appellant.

[807 NYS2d 652]

by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered October 23, 2002, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted forgery in the second degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The defendant did not appeal from the original judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted forgery in the second degree. Therefore, on this appeal from the amended judgment, the defendant is foreclosed from challenging the propriety of the original judgment, including, inter alia, claims as to the validity of his plea of guilty or the effectiveness of his counsel *(see People v Augustin,*286 AD2d 442 [2001]; *People v Oquendo,*286 AD2d 740 [2001]; *People v Riddick,*269 AD2d 472 [2000]; *People v Moore,*261 AD2d 421 [1999]). The defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his *811claim that the sentence imposed upon his violation of probation was excessive (see *People v Gorovoy,*309 AD2d 764 [2003]; *People v Bennett,*269 AD2d 401 [2000]). Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Lunn, JJ., concur.
Release dates | 
    Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions | 
    Actions under delegated authority
    
    Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia 
  | Cleveland | Richmond 
  | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis 
  | Kansas City | Dallas 
  | San Francisco

# Board Actions

## Actions taken during the week ending April 23, 2022

---





Release dates | 
    Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions | 
    Actions under delegated authority
    Applications and reports received:Boston | 
    New York | 
    Philadelphia | 
    Cleveland | 
    Richmond | 
    AtlantaChicago | 
    St. Louis | 
    Minneapolis | 
    Kansas City | 
    Dallas | 
    San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact us
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

MICHAEL EDWARD JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.,

Defendant.

8:23CV216

SECOND AMENDED

CASE PROGRESSION ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Extend Amended Case 

Progression Order (Filing No. 49). After review of the parties’ motion, the Court finds good cause 

to grant the requested extensions. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Extend Amended Case Progression Order 

(Filing No. 49) is granted, and the amended case progression order is amended as follows:

1) The deposition deadline, including but not limited to depositions for oral 

testimony only under Rule 45, is July 10, 2024.

2) The deadline for completing written discovery under Rules 33, 34, 36, and 45 of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is July 10, 2024. Motions to compel written 

discovery under Rules 33, 34, 36, and 45 must be filed by July 24, 2024.

Note: A motion to compel, to quash, or for a disputed protective order shall not 

be filed without first contacting the chambers of the undersigned magistrate judge 

on or before the motion to compel deadline to set a conference to discuss the 

parties’ dispute, and after being granted leave to do so by the Court.

3) The planning conference set for June 14, 2024, is cancelled. The trial and pretrial 

conference will not be set at this time. A planning conference to discuss case 

progression, dispositive motions, the parties’ interest in settlement, and the trial 

and pretrial conference settings will be held with the undersigned magistrate 

judge on July 12, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. by telephone. Counsel shall use the 

conferencing instructions assigned to this case to participate in the conference.

4) The deadline for filing motions to exclude testimony on Daubert and related 

grounds is July 27, 2024.

5) The deadline for filing motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment is 

August 22, 2024. 

8:23-cv-00216-JFB-MDN Doc # 50 Filed: 05/30/24 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 147
6) The parties shall comply with all other stipulations and agreements recited in their 

Rule 26(f) planning report that are not inconsistent with this order. 

7) All requests for changes of deadlines or settings established herein shall be 

directed to the undersigned magistrate judge. Such requests will not be considered 

absent a showing of due diligence in the timely progression of this case and the 

recent development of circumstances, unanticipated prior to the filing of the 

motion, which require that additional time be allowed.

Dated this 30th day of May, 2024.

BY THE COURT:

s/Michael D. Nelson 

United States Magistrate Judge 

8:23-cv-00216-JFB-MDN Doc # 50 Filed: 05/30/24 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 148
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 21

                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  Percentage
                                                                  of Voting
                                                                  Securities
                                                    State of       Owned By
                                                  Incorporation   Registrant
                                                  -------------   ----------
<S>                                                 <C>              <C>
    Compupower Corporation                          Delaware         100%

    Value Line Securities, Inc.                     New York         100%

    The Vanderbilt Advertising Agency, Inc.         New York         100%

    Value Line Publishing, Inc.                     New York         100%

    Value Line Distribution Center, Inc.            New Jersey       100%
</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**JEAN LOUISE VILLANI, INDIVIDUALLY**

**AND IN HER CAPACITY AS PERSONAL**

**REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF GUERINO VILLANI, DECEASED** 

**v.**

**JOHN SEIBERT, JR. AND MARY**

**SEIBERT**

**FREDERICK JOHN SEIBERT, JR. AND**

**MARY SEIBERT**

**v.**

**JEAN LOUISE VILLANI AND THOMAS D.**

**SCHNEIDER**

**PETITION OF: MARY SEIBERT AND FREDERICK JOHN SEIBERT, JR.**  **:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 11 MM 2016** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 15th day of June, 2016, the Application for Lea ve to File** 

**Supplemental Answer and the Petition for Permission to Appeal are**  GRANTED

**.**

**The issue on appeal, as framed by Petitioners, is:**

**Did the trial court err when it held that the Dragon etti Act, 42 Pa.C.S.** 
**§8351** et seq. **, is an unconstitutional infringement upon the Supreme**
**Court’s authority to regulate the conduct of attorneys under Article V,**  **§10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution such that attor neys are immune**  **from suit for Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings?** M.D. Appeal Dkt. 66 2016**11 MM 2016 - 2**

**The Prothonotary is** DIRECTED **to provide notice of this order to the Office of**

**Attorney General.** Cf. **Pa.R.A.P. 521(a) (providing that the Attorney Gener al shall be** 

**notified of an appellate court matter which “draws in question the constitutionality of any** 

**statute”).**
Exhibit 13.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: June 7, 2007



/s/ KARL-HENRIK SUNDSTRÖMKarl-Henrik Sundström Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of
any general incorporation language in such filing.
#### NWE Corp. et al., Respondents, v Atomic Risk Management of New York, Inc., Also Known as A.R.M. of New York Insurance et al., Appellants.

[808 NYS2d 45]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered on or about October 18, 2004, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs leave to serve a further amended complaint to set forth with greater specificity the claim that defendants were negligent in failing to recommend suitable insurance coverage limits after impliedly agreeing to provide such services, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The proposed amended complaint alleges that plaintiffs requested defendant insurance brokers to “insure [them] adequately,” that defendants “recommended coverage,” and that plaintiffs relied on defendants’ recommendations and advice. Included also is an allegation that “[plaintiff] NWE contracted with [defendant] Atomic that the latter would recommend and procure adequate insurance under the circumstances.” Thus, since there is some support in the record for plaintiffs’ claims that they did not merely request defendants to obtain a specific type of coverage, but relied on defendants’ expertise and advice in determining an appropriate policy limit, and that defendants agreed to recommend adequate coverage, the amendment permitted by the court was not so plainly devoid of merit as to preclude its assertion (see *Garnerville Holding Co. v Kaye Ins. Assoc.,*309 AD2d 541 [2003], *lv denied*2 NY3d 705 [2004]; *see also Murphy v Kuhn,*90 NY2d 266, 272 [1997]; *and see*CPLR 3025 [b]; *Peretich v City of New York,*263 AD2d 410 [1999]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Marlow and Sullivan, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR E

United States of America

V .

Jason Bissonnette

Criminal No . 08-cr-115-01-JD

O R D E R

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

9) 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 . § 3161 (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 : December 22, 200 8

cc : Robert Veiga, Esq .

James Gleason, Esq .

U .S . Marsha l

U .S . Probation

Case 1:08-cr-00115-JD Document 10 Filed 12/22/08 Page 1 of 1
#### The Commodore Perry Hotel Co. *v.*City of Toledo.

(No. 25032

— Decided October 31, 1934.)

*Mr. John B. McMahon*and *Mr. Franklin F. Hayward,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Ralph W. Doty, Mr. W. G. Christensen*and *Mr. Jas. Slater Gibson,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and tbe same hereby is, dismissed for the reason *645no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Jones, Matthias, Bevis, Zimmerman and Wilkin, JJ., concur.
212 La. 334

#### WILLIAMS v. WILLIAMS.

No. 38228.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 16, 1947.

Rehearing Denied July 3, 1947.

J. S. Pickett, of Many, for plaintiff-appellant.

Kay & Kay, of De Ridder, for defend-a.nt-appellee.

PONDER, Justice.

The plaintiff, Mrs. Mable S. Roberts Williams, brought suit against her husband, the defendant Rollie A. Williams, seeking a separation on the ground of cruel treatment. The defendant reconvened and asked for a separation on the ground of abandonment. The trial court rejected the plaintiff’s demand and gave the defendant judgment of separation on the ground of abandonment. The plaintiff has appealed. After the appeal was lodged in this Court the plaintiff interposed exceptions of no right or cause of action to the defendant’s reconventional demand.

After reading the testimony adduced on the trial of this case we have reached the conclusion that the trial judge was correct in holding that the plaintiff had failed' to establish the allegations of her petition.

A reconventional demand on the part of a defendant for a separation on the ground of abandonment is not allowable. A demand for separation on such ground must be brought by direct action, and cannot be brought in any other form. This Court pointed out, in the case of Bullock v. Bullock, 174 La. 839, 141 So. 852, that the settled jurisprudence of this State is to the effect that a reconventional demand on the ground of abandonment is not allowable.

The case of Bullock v. Bullock, supra, is not only decisive of the issue but is also authority that such question may be raised by exceptions of no right or cause of action in this- Court.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the lower court is reversed and set aside, and the proceedings are dismissed; the costs of the lower court to be paid by the plaintiff and the costs of the appeal to be paid by the defendant.

O’NIELL, C. J., dissents for the reasons given in his dissenting opinion in Bullock v. Bullock, 174 La. 839, 141 So. 852, 1932.

Supplemental Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It has been suggested that the defendant should be cast with the cost of the lower court as well as that of the appeal in view of the fact that they are debts of the community. On considering the suggestion, we have arrived at the conclusion *819that the defendant should he required to pay the entire cost of the proceedings in view of the fact that the proceedings were dismissed and there was no dissolution' of the community.

It is now' ordered that the cost of the lower court and the cost of the appeal is to be paid by the defendant, Rollie A. Williams. As thus amended, our original decree is affirmed.
Exhibit
32.1
  CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In
connection with the Annual Report of China Solar & Clean Energy Solutions,
Inc. and its subsidiaries (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Deli Du, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company and Jing Chen , Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his or her
knowledge:
  (1)
 The Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (2)
 The information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
  Date: April
15, 2009
  /s/ Deli
Du.
 By: Deli
Du,
 Chief
Executive Officer and President
 (principal
executive officer)
 
 /s/   Jing
Chen.
 By: Jing
Chen
 Chief
Financial Officer (principal
 financial
officer and accounting officer)
Exhibit 10.10


                                PROMISSORY NOTE



$100,000.00                                        October 23, 2003
                                                   Wall Township, New Jersey

      FOR  VALUE  RECEIVED,   COATES  MOTORCYCLE   COMPANY,   LTD.,  a  Delaware
corporation,  having  its  principal  offices  located  at  2100  Highway  #34 &
Ridgewood Road, Wall Township,  New Jersey 07719 (hereinafter sometimes referred
to as the  "Maker")  promises to pay to the order of PAUL M. DI LORENZO,  MD, an
individual having and address located at 1 Main Street, Suite 104, P.O. Box 954,
Eatontown,  New Jersey 07724 (hereinafter  sometimes referred to as the "Payee")
the  sum of ONE  HUNDREDTHOUSAND  AND  00/100  ($100,000.00)  Dollars,  accruing
interest at the rate of five percent (5%) per annum, which outstanding principal
balance and accrued  interest shall be due and payable on the first  anniversary
date hereof.  This Note may, at the option of the Maker,  be prepaid in whole or
in part without penalty.

            Notwithstanding  the foregoing,  the unpaid balance of the principal
sum of this note and interest hereon shall  immediately  become due and payable,
at the election of the Payee hereof, in the event of:

                  (a) 15 days default in any payment due hereunder; or

                  (b) the  appointment  of a receiver of the  property,  rights,
credits, assets or any part thereof, of the Maker; or

                  (c) the  filing  of a  petition  by or  against  the Maker for
relief under any bankruptcy or insolvency law; or

                  (d) an  assignment  by the Maker of assets for the  benefit of
creditors.

            The Maker and all other parties who at any time may be liable hereon
in any  capacity,  jointly and  severally,  waive  presentment  and diligence in
collecting, demand for payment, protest and notice of dishonor of this note, and
authorize the Payee hereof,  without notice,  to grant extensions in the time of
payment or any  reductions  in the rate of interest on any monies  owing on this
Note without notice to the Maker or any endorsers hereof.

            In the  event  Payee is  obligated  to  employ  the  services  of an
attorney to enforce any of the obligations set forth herein, Maker hereby agrees
to pay any and all such reasonable attorneys fees utilized in any enforcement or
collection proceeding.

                                          MAKER:

                                          COATES MOTORCYCLE COMPANY, LTD.

                                          By: /s/ Gregory G. Coates
                                              ----------------------------------
                                               Gregory G. Coates, President





Prom Note - COATES MOTO - DiLorenzo