alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| **** |
|------|

**Exhibit 10.**

 

 

**JOINDER NUMBER 2005-1**

**TO**

**TAX SHARING AGREEMENT**

 

This Joinder Number 2005-1 to Tax Sharing Agreement, dated January 20, 2006, is entered into by and between ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company (“ING USA”) and ING America Insurance Holdings, Inc. (“ING”), on its own behalf and on behalf of each of its subsidiaries that are currently parties to that certain Tax Sharing Agreement hereinafter described (the “Subsidiaries”).   

 

WHEREAS, ING and the Subsidiaries are members of an affiliated group, as that term is defined in Section 1504 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, which expects to file a consolidated federal income tax return for each taxable year during which the Subsidiaries are includible corporations qualified to so file; 

 

WHEREAS, ING and the Subsidiaries entered into that certain Tax Sharing Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Agreement”) to provide for the manner of computation of the amounts and timing of payments with regard to the consolidated federal income tax return of the affiliated group for each taxable year;

 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 5 of the Agreement, subsidiaries of ING that were not immediately eligible to join the affiliated group as of the effective date of the Tax Sharing Agreement are subsequently allowed to join when they become eligible to join the affiliated group; and  

 

WHEREAS, ING USA has become an eligible subsidiary effective January 1, 2005 and in accordance with Section 5 of the Agreement is now eligible to join the affiliated group and become a party to the Agreement;    

 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties agree as follows:

 

| 1. | In accordance with Section 5 of the Agreement, effective January 1, 2005 (the “Effective Time”), ING USA has joined in and become a party to the Agreement. |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | Notwithstanding paragraph 12 of the Agreement, with respect to ING USA, the Agreement: (i) shall be effective from and after the Effective Time; and (ii) shall apply to taxable year 2005 and to all subsequent periods unless and until amended or terminated, as provided in Section 10 of the Agreement. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 3. | Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Joinder Number 2005-1, from and after the Effective Time, ING USA shall be subject to all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

 

----
August 2001 

Adopted Changes to the Remanufactured and Repaired Device 

Definition 

By: Juana Williams 

The NCWM modified the definition of "manufactured device" and adopted new 

definitions of "remanufactured and repaired device and element" that will appear in the 

2002 edition of NIST Handbook 44. A corresponding new marking requirement that 

applies to remanufactured devices was also adopted. The definitions will also be included 

in NIST Handbook 130 and NCWM Publication 14. 

Tables of examples developed by the Remanufactured Device Task Force that provide 

guidance about whether a option to select cars with or without internal device is 

remanufactured or repaired, requires equipment such as GPS. 

a remanufacturer’s label, and is traceable to a Certificate of Conformance are under 

review. Several examples require further clarification before they are made available to 

the weights and measures community. The NCWM 

Specifications and Tolerances Committee explored several options for making the tables 

accessible to field officials and the service industry such as adding the tables to 

Handbooks 44 and 130 or electronically posting the information. The Committee asks for 

input from the private and public sectors on examples needing clarification and where to 

make this information widely available.
Exhibit 1 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-1 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:9918
(12) United States Design Patent (10) Patent No.: 

USOOD73.9906S 

US D739,906S 

Chen (45) Date of Patent: Sep. 29, 2015 

(54) TWO-WHEELED VEHICLE D552,201 S * 10/2007 Kwak .......................... D21,765 

D567,883 S * 4/2008 Ota .............................. D21,421 

D572,332 S * 7/2008 Sramek et al. ............... D21,765 (71) Applicant: Shane Chen, Camas, WA (US) D607,525 S * 1/2010 Marciano ..................... D21,769 

(72) Inventor: Shane Chen, Camas, WA (US) * cited by examiner 

(**) Term: 14 Years Primary Examiner — Cynthia M Chin 

(22) Filed: Mar 12, 2013 The ornamental design for a two-wheeled vehicle, as shown 

and described. 

(51) LOC (10) Cl. ................................................ 21-02 

(52) U.S. Cl. DESCRIPTION 

USPC ......................................................... D21A760 

(58) Field of Classification Search FIG. 1 is a top view of the two-wheeled vehicle. 

USPC ........ D21/419, 421, 423,426, 760, 765, 766, FIG. 2 is a front elevation view of the vehicle of FIG. 1; the 

D21/769, 771, 776, 803: D12/1; 280/7.14, rear elevation views being identical thereto. 

280/11.14, 11.16, 11.19, 11.115, 11.226, FIG. 3 is a bottom view of the vehicle of FIG. 1. 

280/11.233, 11.25, 11.27, 11.28, 14.21, FIG. 4 is a perspective view of the vehicle of FIG. 1; and, 

280/87.01, 87.021, 87.03, 87.041, 87.042, FIG. 5 is a side view of the vehicle of FIG. 1; the opposite side 

280/809,811: 180/180, 181 view being identical thereto. 

See application file for complete search history. The broken lines represent functional components which are 

provided for context and do not form a part of the claimed 

(56) References Cited design. In FIGS. 1-4, the single broken line in the middle of 

the vehicle represents a joint whereby the right and left halves 

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS of the vehicle may twist relative to each other as part of the 

D437.377 S * 2/2001 Fisher .......................... D21765 vehicle's function. 

D465,003 S * 10/2002 Ohrvallet al. ... D21,763 

D535,714 S * 1/2007 Cheng et al. ................. D21,763 1 Claim, 3 Drawing Sheets 

e rat a 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-1 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:9919
U.S. Patent Sep. 29, 2015 Sheet 1 of 3 US D739,906S 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-1 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:9920
U.S. Patent Sep. 29, 2015 Sheet 2 of 3 US D739,906S 

Fig. 3 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-1 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:9921
U.S. Patent Sep. 29, 2015 Sheet 3 of 3 US D739,906S 

Fig. 3 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 413-1 Filed: 09/03/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:9922
TO VOTE: Use the No. 2 Pencil to connect the broken arrow pointing to your choice, like this:

Sample Ballot

Ward 7

OFFICIAL BALLOT
GENERAL ELECTION

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NOVEMBER 2, 2004

(Ze

ze ——

For each office, vote only for the number of candidates indicated (DO NOT USE RED INK)

ELECTORS OF
PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES
VOTE FOR NO MORE THAN ONE (4)
JOHN F. KERRY
JOHN EDWARDS

DAVID COBB
PATRICIA LaMARCHE

MICHAEL BADNARIK
RICHARD CAMPAGNA

JAMES HARRIS
MARGARET TROWE

GEORGE W. BUSH
DICK CHENEY

RALPH NADER
PETER MIGUEL CAMEJO

DENS CRATS Gam

GC STATEXOOD
GREEN PARTY

LASERT ARIA NAG

FOCIALIST WORKERS ae |

REPUBL CON gm

MOEPENTENT cy

eo

Write in, tf any

DELEGATE TO THE
U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

VOTE FOR NO. MORE THAN ONE /t)

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON CEMCSRAN Gomme
MICHAEL ANDREW MONROE PEPLESCAN Gam
Virte inf any =
AT-LARGE
MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL
WOTE FOR NO MORE THAN TW 12
CAROL SCHWARTZ wera am
LAURENT ROSS © hacen Paes
KWAME R. BROWN neNoRATC amy
A.D. “TONY” DOMINGUEZ OEMENENT am
Write in, # any =
Weite in, # any dom
WARD SEVEN
MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL

VOTE FO% NO MORE THAN ONE)

MICHELE TINGLING-CLEMMONS  °SizevSu*
JEROD TOLSON REPL eer |
VINCENT C. GRAY DEMOQRATIC gan

dirt in if any

TO VOTE: Use the No. 2 Pencil to
connect the broken arrow pointing
to your choice, like this

Zs

iQ

OFFICIAL BALLOT
GENERAL ELECTION

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NOVEMBER 2, 2004
TO VOTE: Use the No. 2 Pencil to

connect the broken arrow pointing
to your choice, like this

b

= — 0

For each office, vote only for the
number of candidates indicated

(DO NOT USE RED INK)

TO VOTE: Use the No. 2 Pencil to
connect the broken arrow pointing
to your choice, like this:

(Z

eee

For each office, vote only for the
number of candidates indicated.

{DO NOT USE RED INK)

11

UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE

SOTE FOR NO MORE THAN ONE (t

RAY BROWNE

omocears Gama
ADAM EIDINGER O Gaceupaer?
Virte in. if any es

OS ST RS SE ST TO

ADVISORY NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMISSIONER XXXX

VOTE FOR NO MORE THAN ORE ft)

CANDIDATE ONE

’ “
ree nt any

os
ea
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

LAWRENCE H. GRESS, and on behalf of 

himself and others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY, 

an Illinois corporation; and EXELON 

CORPORATION, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 1:20-cv-04405 

Hon. Jorge L. Alonso 

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

STEVEN BROOKS, DAVID CHAVEZ, 1540 

N. MILWAUKEE LLC d/b/a DSTRKT BAR & 

GRILL, and CARMICHAEL LEASING CO., 

INC., for themselves individually and for all 

class members similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY, 

d/b/a ComEd and EXELON CORPORATION, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 1:20-cv-04555 

SOUTH BRANCH LLC, TFO GOLUB 

BURNHAM LLC, d/b/a THE BURNHAM 

CENTER, TFO GOLUB IT 2.0 LLC, d/b/a 

INTERNATIONAL TOWER, and 

ROCKWELL ON THE RIVER LLC, for 

themselves individually and for all class 

members similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY 

d/b/a ComEd; and EXELON CORPORATION, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 1:20-cv-04980 

Case: 1:20-cv-04405 Document #: 84 Filed: 02/04/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:1522
1

CITIZENS UTILITY BOARD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY, 

an Illinois corporation, 

Defendant. 

 Case No. 1:20-cv-04405 

DEFENDANTS COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY 

AND EXELON CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS CLASS PLAINTIFFS’ 

CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND CITIZENS UTILITY BOARD’S 

COMPLAINT 

For the reasons provided in the accompanying memorandum of law, Defendants 

Commonwealth Edison Company and Exelon Corporation, by and through their undersigned 

attorneys, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), hereby move this Court to 

dismiss Class Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Class Action Complaint, Dkt. 75, and Citizens Utility 

Board’s Complaint, Dkt. 76, with prejudice. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04405 Document #: 84 Filed: 02/04/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:1523
2

Dated: February 4, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Terrence J. Truax

Matthew E. Price Terrence J. Truax 

JENNER & BLOCK LLP Nicole Allen 

1099 New York Ave. NW Suite 900 E. Glenn Rippie 

Washington, DC 20001 Ali I. Alsarraf 

(202) 639-6873 JENNER & BLOCK LLP 

mprice@jenner.com 353 N. Clark Street 

Chicago, IL 60654-3456 

(312) 222-9350 

ttruax@jenner.com 

nallen@jenner.com 

grippie@jenner.com 

aalsarraf@jenner.com 

Counsel for Defendants 

Commonwealth Edison Company and 

Exelon Corporation 

Case: 1:20-cv-04405 Document #: 84 Filed: 02/04/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:1524
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Terrence J. Truax, an attorney, certify that I caused copies of the foregoing Defendants 

Commonwealth Edison Company and Exelon Corporation’s Motion To Dismiss Class 

Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Class Action Complaint and Citizens Utility Board’s Complaint to 

be served on all counsel of record via the Court’s electronic filing system. 

 /s/ Terrence J. Truax 

Counsel for Defendants Commonwealth Edison 

Company and Exelon Corporation 

Case: 1:20-cv-04405 Document #: 84 Filed: 02/04/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:1525
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE
QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO ITS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                     JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                58,112
<SECURITIES>                         150,000
<RECEIVABLES>                        125,225
<ALLOWANCES>                               0 
<INVENTORY>                           90,861
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     421,070
<PP&E>                            10,729,458
<DEPRECIATION>                      (511,775)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    10,641,881
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                499,147
<BONDS>                              100,591
<COMMON>                             296,949
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<OTHER-SE>                         9,745,194
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      10,641,881
<SALES>                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      20,000
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        441,827
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    (120,666)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     4,590
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (305,751)
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                        (305,751)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (.01)

        
<PAGE>


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED

December 23, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-60133 Summary Calendar

MUMTAZUL HASAN; YASMIN HASAN; JURRAT HASAN; RUTHBA HASAN,

Petitioners,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA Nos. A79 585 381 A70 585 382 A79 585 383 A70 585 384

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

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Mumtazul, Yasmin, Jurrat, and Ruthba Hasan (petitioners), are

natives of Bangladesh. They have filed a petition for review of

the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming

the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of their petitions for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against

Torture.2

Petitioners’ argument that the BIA’s affirmance o f the IJ’s

decision deprived them of their right to a meaningful agency appeal

is without merit. S ee 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7) (2002); S oadjede v.

Ashcroft , 324 F.3d 830, 831 (5th Cir. 2003).

The IJ’s determinat ion that the petitioners failed to show

that Mumtazul suffered past persecution, as well as the fact that

conditions in Bangladesh have changed such that they no longer have

a well founded fear persecution, is supported by substantial

evidence. See Lopez De Jesus v. INS , 312 F.3d 155, 161 (5th Cir.

2002); Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft

, 303 F.3d 341, 350-51 (5th Cir.

2002); Rojas v. INS
, 937 F.2d 186, 190 n.1 (5th Cir. 1991); 8

C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1) (1997). Neither have the petitioners shown

that the IJ erred in denying their requests for withholding of

removal or for relief under the Convention Against Torture. S ee

Faddoul v. INS
, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994); Efe v. Ashcroft

,

293 F.3d 899, 907 (5th Cir. 2002). The petition for review of the

BIA affirmance of the IJ’s decision is DENIED.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-41268

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee

v.

JOSE ARISMENDY GUERRERO-SOTO,

Defendant–Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:10-CR-815-1

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Arismendy

Guerrero-Soto has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v.

Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Guerrero-Soto has not filed a response. We

have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 16, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-41268 Document: 00511604543 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/16/2011
No. 10-41268

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 10-41268 Document: 00511604543 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/16/2011
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3964 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3964

 To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 
the operation of the Medicare comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program 
                             in California.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 11, 2004

 Mr. Stark (for himself, Mr. Waxman, Mr. George Miller of California, 
    Mr. Matsui, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Berman, Ms. Pelosi, Ms. Waters, Mr. 
  Becerra, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Filner, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. 
Farr, Ms. Lofgren, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Mr. Sherman, Mrs. Capps, Ms. 
  Lee, Mr. Baca, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. Honda, Mr. Schiff, Ms. 
 Solis, Ms. Watson, and Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
  Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 
the operation of the Medicare comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program 
                             in California.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON OPERATION OF MEDICARE COMPARATIVE COST 
              ADJUSTMENT (CCA) PROGRAM IN CALIFORNIA.

    Section 1860C-1(b)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
29(b)(2)), as added by section 241(a) of the Medicare Prescription 
Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173), 
is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) No part in california.--No part of the MSA is 
                in California.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
      32.1





CERTIFICATION
      FURNISHED 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 quarterly report of Patriot Scientific Corporation (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended November 30, 2005, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission and to which this Certification
      is
      an exhibit (the “Report”), the undersigned officer of Patriot Scientific
      Corporation does hereby certify, pursuant to Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities
      and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title
      18
      of the United States Code 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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





Date:
      November 27, 2006


/s/
                David H. PohlDavid
                H. Pohl
              *Chief
                Executive Officer*