alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w1



 






Exhibit 10.1




TERMINATION OF SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT




          This Termination of Subscription Agreement (this “Termination”) is effective as of the 16th
day of November 2005 between Sangamo BioSciences, Inc. (the “Company”) and Michael C. Wood
(“Wood”).




RECITALS:




          The Company and Wood previously entered into a Subscription Agreement, dated November 10, 2005
(the “Subscription Agreement”), pursuant to which the Company agreed to sell and Wood agreed to buy
shares of common stock of the Company, subject to certain closing conditions. Subsequent to the
execution of the Subscription Agreement and prior to the satisfaction of the closing conditions of
the Subscription Agreement, the Nasdaq staff determined and advised the Company that the proposed
sale pursuant to the Subscription Agreement should be combined with the sales to the investors
pursuant to the Placement Agency Agreement, dated November 10, 2005, among the Company, JMP
Securities, Piper Jaffray & Co. and Leerink Swann & Company (the “Placement Agency Agreement”) and
consequently the Company would be required under the Nasdaq Marketplace Rules to obtain prior
shareholder approval. The Company and Wood believe it is in the best interest of the Company to
immediately terminate the Subscription Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth below.




          NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and Wood hereby agree as follows:




          1.     The Subscription Agreement is hereby terminated effective as of date hereof and prior to
the closing of the sale of shares pursuant to the Placement Agency Agreement, and the parties
hereto shall have no further rights or obligations under the Subscription Agreement from and after
said time and date.




          2.     This Termination shall be construed and governed by the laws of the State of California.




[Followed by Signature Page]




 









 








          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Termination the day and year first
written above.




	 	 	 	 	 
	SANGAMO BIOSCIENCES, INC.

 	 
	By:  	/s/ Edward O. Lanphier
 	 	 	 
	 	Edward O. Lanphier 	 	 
	 	Chief Executive Officer 	 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	MICHAEL C. WOOD

 	 
	/s/ Michael C. Wood
<PAGE>   1




                                                                     EXHIBIT 5.1


                   [Letterhead of Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue]




                                 August 31, 1998


Aviall, Inc.
2075 Diplomat Drive
Dallas, Texas  75234-8999


                   Re: Aviall, Inc. 1998 Directors Stock Plan


Ladies and Gentlemen:

               We are acting as counsel to Aviall, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), in connection with the registration of up to 135,000 shares
(the "Shares") of Common Stock, par value $.01 per share, of the Company (the
"Common Stock") under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, pursuant to the
Company's Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement on Form S-8
(the "Registration Statement").

               We have examined such documents, records and matters of law as we
have deemed necessary for purposes of this opinion. Based upon such examination
and the assumptions set forth below, we are of the opinion that the Shares, when
issued and delivered in accordance with the provisions of the Aviall, Inc. 1998
Directors Stock Plan (the "Plan") against payment of the consideration therefore
as provided in the Plan and having a value not less than the par value thereof,
will be duly authorized, validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable.

               In rendering the foregoing opinion, we have relied as to certain
factual matters upon certificates of officers of the Company and public
officials, and we have not independently checked or verified the accuracy of the
statements contained therein. In addition, our examination of matters of law has
been limited to the federal laws of the United States of America and the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, in each case as in effect on the date
hereof.

               We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as Exhibit 5.1 to
the Registration Statement.

                                       Very truly yours,

                                       /s/ Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue
                                       ---------------------------------------

                                       Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue
#### VULCAN CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INCORPORATED; Vulcan Materials Company, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Phillip J. BARKER, d/b/a Sabra Asia, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-1677.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

May 29, 2001.

ORDER

Upon motion of Barker and after considering the record and briefs and argument of counsel, for the reasons expressed in an opinion in writing this day filed, it is accordingly ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the order of the district court appealed from, which was filed May 24, 2001, shall be, and it hereby is, stayed during the pendency of this appeal and until the further order of this court.

Upon the motion of the Vulcan companies, that I stay this order pending a reconsideration of the motion of Barker by a panel of this court, I deny the motion for the reason that the Superior Court of Sacramento County, California is awaiting the outcome of this proceeding, and I am advised that such hearing has been set for 12:00 noon this date, Eastern Daylight Time. This order is entered at 11:55 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time.

Each of the attorneys for all of the parties objected to every adverse ruling contained in my opinion and in this order, for every reason which may be supported by the record, and stated fully the grounds for such objection.

Entered this 29th day of May, 2001, at 11:55 a.m.
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





I, Patrick Freeman, Chief Executive Officer of Cordia Corporation (the Registrant) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the period June 30, 2004 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report):

(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 Registrant.



By:/s/ Patrick Freeman





Patrick Freeman



Chief Executive Officer



March 10, 2005









*

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Cordia Corporation and will be retained by Cordia Corporation and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
#### Chas. Obst *v.*The City of Louisville.

Municipal Corporations — Improvement Contract — Manner of Execution.

The law will not imply an obligation on the part of tbe city to pay for work procured to be done by tbe city’s officers, unless tbe contract has been executed and approved as provided by tbe charter and tbe general ordinance regulating tbe manner in which such contracts shall be made.

Municipal Corporations — Approval of Engineer’s Report — Liability of City.

The approval of the report of the city engineer and the issual of a warrant for the value of work done, does not commit the city to payment therefor, unless the work was undertaken as provided by the city charter and the general ordinance regulating the manner in which such contracts shall be made.

APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

March 20, 1873.

*578
      *Harrison, for appellant.*

*Burnett, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

The chancellor was compelled to refuse appellant relief as against the city of Louisville. The contract clearly and unmistakably sets out the work to be done. The city 'engineer had no power to settle its terms, nor to authorize appellant to do more work than the city had employed him to do. His good faith can not change the law.

The city of Louisville can bind itself by contracts for the improvement of its streets in but one way, and that is pointed out by its -charter. The law will imply no obligation upon the part of the the charter and the general ordinance regulating the manner in which city to pay for work procured to be done by the city’s officers, unless the contract has been executed, signed, and approved as provided by such contracts shall be made. *Murphy v. City of Louisville,*Manuscript Opinion, 1872.

The rules of law applicable to private corporations do not in matters of this kind apply to municipal or public corporations.

The approval of the engineer’s report, and the issual of the warrant against Richardson for the value of the work did not commit the city to its payment.

That the general council, with the approval of mayor, might make an appropriation of the city treasury to pay for the extra work, done at the instance of the city engineer, may be conceded, but inasmuch as no such appropriation has been made, the courts have no power to interfere.

The judgment must be *affirmed.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7156

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANNA B. HOLT,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:17-cr-00030-JPJ-PMS-1)

Submitted: January 30, 2019 Decided: February 7, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anna B. Holt, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anna B. Holt appeals from the district court’s orders denying her motion to 

modify her restitution order and her motion for reconsideration. Our review of the record 

reveals that Holt is not challenging the district court’s restitution order, but rather she 

challenges a payment schedule under the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program. Such 

a claim must be brought in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition after exhaustion of 

administrative remedies. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in 

the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 13.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, each of the undersigned officers of Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. (the company), hereby certifies, to such
officers knowledge, that the companys annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the company.





Date:  August 30, 2007



/s/    Fumio OhtsuboName:

Fumio OhtsuboTitle:

President and Director(Principal Executive Officer)




/s/    Makoto UenoyamaName:

Makoto UenoyamaTitle:

Director(Principal Financial Officer)
Order entered August 21, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 14 - 00389 - CV IN RE CHARLES ANTHONY ALLE N, Relator On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV99 - 01573 - V



### O RDER The Court has received correspondence from the relator dated August 18, 2014 requesting that the Court reconsider its dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We treat the correspondence as a motion for rehearing. The relator is inca rcerated because he was found guilty of the criminal offense s of robbery and violating a protective order. Allen v. State, No. 05

- 01

- 00812

- CR, 2002 WL 1286508, at *4 (Tex. App.

— Dallas June 12, 2002, pet. ref'd, untimely filed)
. On March 27, 2014, he file d a petition for writ of habeas corpus contending that his due process rights were violated in conjunc tion with the granting of the protective order
. The Court dismissed relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus on April 17, 2014 on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction over relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus because this Court’s habeas corpus jurisdiction is limited to challenges to incarceration on judgments of contempt rendered in civil cases and does not extend to cases in which violation of an order in a civil case is an element of the criminalcharge
. In re Allen, No. 05

- 14

- 00389

- CV, 2014 WL 1533207 , at *1 (Tex. Ap p.
— Dallas Apr.

17, 2014, orig. proceeding ) (mem. op.) ; s ee also McBride v. State, 114 S.W.3d 556, 557 (Tex. App.

— Austin 200 2, no pet. (“[T]he court of criminal appeals alone among the courts of Texas has authority to release from confinement persons who have been finally convicted of noncapital felonies.”)
. On July 16, 2014, relator filed a petition for a bill of review, whi ch the Court treated as a motion for rehearing because neither the rules of appellate procedure nor case law provide for an out of time attack on an appellate judgment by bill of review
. In re Allen, No. 05

- 14

- 00389

- CV (Tex. App.

— Dallas July 23, 2014) (or der dismissing bill of review). Id. The Court dismissed relator’s request for relief on the ground the Court’s plenary power had expired
. Id. The Court neither modified its judgment, vacated its judgment and rendered a new judgment, nor issued a differ ent opinion in conjunction with its dismissal of the petition for bill of review. Accordingly, relator is not now entitled to file a further motion for rehearing, T EX . R. A PP . P. 49.5 , and in any event, the Court’ s plenary power over its April 17, 2014 ju dgment has expired. T EX . R. A PP . P. 19.1 (court of appeal ’ s plenary power expires 60 days after judgment if no timely filed motion for rehearing, en banc reconsideration, or motion to extend time to file such a motion is pending); T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.9 (mot ions for rehearing must be filed within 15 days after order disposing of original proceeding)
. We DENY relator’s motion for rehearing.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             208
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,312
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     10,891
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               123,633
<PP&E>                                       1,512,467
<DEPRECIATION>                                 594,299
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,095,588
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          116,414
<BONDS>                                        406,430
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     435,036
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,095,588
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               141,530
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   71,443
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,582
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 52,910
<INCOME-TAX>                                    19,335
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             33,575
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    33,575
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
State of the Practice

for

Connected Intersections

Craig Hinners

Washington, DC

linkedin.com/in/craig-hinners
Connected Intersections

Direct Edge Cloud

Messages exchanged 

between signals and road 

users using V2X

April 2023

C-V2X Waiver National V2X Deployment Plan
2023

2040?

2045?

2050?

Connected & Automated Vehicle 

Adoption

100%

Transition 

Period
Near Term
Mid Term
Long Term
Existing Traffic Detection
Smart Traffic Detection
Per Vehicle Data

› Location

› Speed

› Heading

› Type
Queued Traffic Warning (CAV Mix)

STOPPED

TRAFFIC

AHEAD
Red Light Running Warning (Non-CAV)

Stopping Distance

PedApp v1

Don’t Cross!
Red Light Running Warning (CAV)

RED 

SIGNAL

AHEAD

Stopping Distance
Pedestrian Warning (CAV Mix)
Near Miss History (CAV Mix)

Missed by 2 sec!
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Managed Pension Assets Partnership 1988-A, Ltd.'s balance sheet and statement of
operations  contained in its Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended March 31, 1997 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         1,437
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  11,592
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               13,029
<PP&E>                                         4,277,015
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,735,215)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 554,829
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          21,567
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     533,262
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   554,829
<SALES>                                        62,356
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               62,362
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  22,677<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                30,535
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            30,535
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   30,535
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes lease operating expenses, production taxes and depreciation,
depletion and amortization expense.  Excludes general and administrative and
interest expense.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 12.9**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 2002**

 

I, Andrew Sukawaty, certify that: 

 

1.    I have reviewed this annual reporton Form 20-F of Inmarsat Global Limited (the “Company”); 

 

2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4.    The Company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have: 

 

(a)    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared; 

 

(b)    Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c)    Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5.    The Company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a)    All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b)    Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 70614]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28038]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board


Release of Waybill Data

    The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from RSI 
Logistics (WB604-12--11/12/14) for permission to use certain data from 
the Board's 2013 Carload Waybill Sample. A copy of this request may be 
obtained from the Office of Economics.
    The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; 
therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file 
their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics 
within 14 calendar days of the date of this notice. The rules for 
release of waybill data are codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.
    Contact: Alexander Dusenberry, (202) 245-0319.

Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2014-28038 Filed 11-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P