alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.14


  


FIRST AMENDMENT
TO


DECEMBER
22, 2017 LICENSE AGREEMENT


 


THIS
First Amendment to the December 22, 2017 License Agreement ("First Amendment"), effective as of the date last written below
(the "Effective Date"), is made by and between MDNA Life Sciences Inc. ("MDNA") and Laboratory Corporation of America
Holdings ("LabCorp"). MDNA and LabCorp may be referred to herein each as a "Party" or collectively as "Parties."


 


RECITALS


 


A.             MDNA
and LabCorp entered into a License Agreement having an effective
date of December 22, 2017 (the "Agreement"); and,


 


B.             The
Parties now wish to amend the Agreement in accordance with the terms of this First Amendment.


 


TERMS


NOW,
THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
and the mutual covenants set forth herein, the Parties agree as follows:


 


1.             The
definition of "Commencement Date" in Section 1 of the Agreement 1 is hereby amended and restated as follows:


 


"Commencement Date"
means the earlier of: (a) three hundred and thirty (330) days after the Effective Date of this Agreement, or (b) the Commercial Launch
Date.


 


2.             MDNA
acknowledges that it has received full payment of the fees under Section 3.1 and 3.2, as well as the Minimum Annual Royalty for Contract
Year 1 under Sections 3.3 and Exhibit C.


 


3.             All
capitalized terms used in this First Amendment and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned them in the Agreement.


 


4.             Except
as expressly stated in this First Amendment, the Agreement remains unchanged and in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this First Amendment through their authorized representatives signing below.


 





	MDNA LIFE SCIENCES INC.	 	 	LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Chris Mitton	 	By:	/s/ Marcia T. Eisenberg
	 	 	 	 	 
	Name:	Chris Mitton	 	Name:	Marcia T. Eisenberg, Ph.D.
	 	 	 	 	 
	Title:	President & CEO	 	Title:	CSO and SrVP, LabCorp Diagnostics
	 	 	 	 	 
	Date:	May 20, 2019	 	Date:	05/12/2019

















 




    	 	Page 1 of 1
#### UNITED STATES of America v. William GIGLIO, Frank Livorsi, Howard Lawn and American Brands Corp., Defendants.

United States District Court, S. D. New York.

Nov. 9, 1954.

See also, D.C., 16 F.R.D. 268.

J. Edward Lumbard, U. S. Atty., for the S. D. of N. Y., New York City, for United States, Milton R. Wessel, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, of counsel.

Lloyd Paul Stryker, New York City, for defendants, Harold W. Wolfram, New York City, of counsel.

PALMIERI, District Judge.

Defendants’ motions are denied in all respects except as hereinafter indicated.

Defendants have asked me to reconsider my denial of their motion for discovery and inspection under Rule 16 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U. S.C.A. They explain their failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 16 by stating that they believed that the Government would consent to this motion because it had consented to allow defendants to inspect and copy books and records belonging to or abandoned by them when a motion under Rule 16 was made in connection with the previous indictments against the defendants.

In the papers submitted in connection with their motions for reargument defendants have for the first time designated the records which they wish to inspect and made a showing of their materiality as Rule 16 requires. But since they have failed to enumerate the records which they inspected and copied previously, they have still not complied with *245the requirement that a request made under Rule 16 be reasonable.

However, since the trial of this case has been long delayed, I shall overlook this defect if it is cured by the submission of a proper order accompanied by appropriate supplementary papers in compliance with Rule 16 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Settle order on notice.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                      74,922,911
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              580,576,758
<ALLOWANCES>                                25,211,471
<INVENTORY>                                469,316,778
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         1,251,191,560
<PP&E>                                   1,553,119,945
<DEPRECIATION>                             692,000,754
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           2,545,435,164
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    1,026,677,206
<BONDS>                                    516,771,511
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                               1,056,865,033
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             2,545,435,164
<SALES>                                  4,420,726,605
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         4,514,554,754
<CGS>                                    4,356,009,786
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               879,453
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          18,137,810
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             70,227,202
<INCOME-TAX>                                 8,025,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         62,202,202
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                62,202,202
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES v. FISHMAN et al.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Aug. 25, 1953.

*152J. Edward Lumbard, U. S. Atty., Milton R. Wessel, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, for plaintiff.

Friedman & Friedman, Brooklyn, N. Y., for defendants.

SUGARMAN, District Judge.

Plaintiff, United States of America, (Motion No. 63) moves for an order pursuant to Rule 34, F.R.Civ.Proc., requiring defendants to produce for copying certain enumerated documents in an action to recover a civil penalty for defendant’s alleged failure to maintain the-records required by § 6(b) of the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939.1 The documents sought to be produced are those records which the Act required defendants to keep from October 7, 1945 to October 7, 1948.

In opposition to the plaintiff’s motion, defendants claim that they may not be required to produce their records because of their constitutional immunity from self-incrimination.2

Defendants’ contention is not supported by the authorities and it appears that the settled law is quite to the contrary. The following language in Judge Clark’s-opinion in United States v. Shapiro 3 is appropriate here:

> “The principle that the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination protects individuals against being forced to produce private documents for inspection, but not against being forced to produce public documents, is quite clear. * * ***The principle applies not only to public documents in public offices, but also to records required by law to be kept in order that there may be suitable information of transactions which are the appropriate subjects of governmental regulation, and the enforcement of restrictions validly established.”

The records plaintiff seeks to copy are such public documents and defendants have no constitutional privilege as to *153"them.4 Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion (No. 63) is granted.

The defendants (Motion No. 84) ¡move for an order vacating and quashing (1) the interrogatories served by the .plaintiff on August 3, 1953 and (2) the request for admissions served by plaintiff ■on August 3, 1953, on the ground that they too violate defendants’ privilege ¡against self-incrimination.

These interrogatories and requests for •admissions concern activities of the defendants ; records of which were required to be kept by the Act. The plaintiff concedes that, because of a prior ruling of this court in this action,5 defendants need not respond on the merits. Plaintiff does claim, however, that the defendants must answer by claiming their privilege.

Plaintiff’s position is correct6 and defendants’ motion to vacate and quash is denied without prejudice to defendants claiming immunity from self-incrimination in answering such of the interrogatories and requests for admissions, dated August 3, 1953, as they deem in violation of their constitutional privilege.

Settle order.

1

. 15 U.S.C.A. § 68(3(b).

2

. Constitution, Amendment V.

3

. 2 Cir., 159 F.2d 890, 892, affirmed 335 U.S. 1, 68 S.Ct. 1375, 92 L.Ed. 1787.

4

. Wigmore on Evid., 3d Ed., Vol. VIII, § 2259(c), p. 348.

5

. 15 F.R.D. 124.

6

. Wigmore on Evid., 3d Ed., Vol. VIII, § 2268.4, p. 396.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,  As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Sport-Haley, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KA for the year ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do certify, to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,
as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



Dated: February 25, 2005

|/s/PATRICK W. HURLEYPatrick W. Hurley
Chief Financial Officer |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---



QuickLinks
#### Ignacio MORFIN-BERNABE; Alicia Perez-Lopez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-70429.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 12, 2006.*

Filed June 21, 2006.

Ignacio Morfin-Bernabe, San Jose, CA, pro se.

Alicia Perez-Lopez, San Jose, CA, pro se.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Mark C. Walters, Esq., Thomas Fatouros, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: WALLACE, KLEINFELD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Ignacio Morfin-Bernabe and his wife, Alicia Perez-Lopez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen and reconsider the BIA’s prior order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, *Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft,*383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), and dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider the Petitioners’ contention that the BIA erred in concluding that the evidence submitted with their motion to reopen failed to establish the requisite hardship to their United States citizen children. *See Fernandez v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(I) bars this court from reviewing the denial of a motion to reopen where the question presented is whether the new evidence altered the “prior, underlying discretionary determination that [the petitioner] had not met the hardship standard.”) (Internal quotations omitted).

Petitioners’ contention that the BIA violated their due process rights by disregarding their evidence of educational hardship is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim. *See Torres-Aguilar v. INS,*246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001) (“a petitioner may not create the jurisdiction that Congress chose to remove simply by cloaking an abuse of discretion argument in *762constitutional garb.... [T]he claim must have some possible validity.”) (Internal quotation omitted).

The BIA was within its discretion in denying Petitioners’ motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision affirming the IJ’s order denying cancellation of removal. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); *Socop-Gonzalez v. INS,*272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION



Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, UNITED STATES Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Zoom Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify that:

(1)

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company 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 the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |                        
|---------------------- | -----------------------
|Date:  August 18, 2009 |                        
|                       | /s/ Frank B. Manning   
|                       | Frank B. Manning       
|                       | Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 4.34


 


WALDENCAST ACQUISITION CORP.


 


JOINDER


 


LETTER AGREEMENT


 


December 16, 2021


 


By executing this joinder, the undersigned hereby
agrees, as of the date first set forth above, that he shall become a party to that certain Letter Agreement, dated March 15, 2021 (the
“Letter Agreement”), by and among Waldencast Long-Term Capital LLC (the “Sponsor”), the individuals
party thereto and Waldencast Acquisition Corp., and shall be bound by, and entitled to the rights provided under, the terms and provisions
of any section of the Letter Agreement as an Insider (as defined therein) in the same manner applicable as if he was an independent director
at the time of the original Letter Agreement.


 




     


     


    

 


This joinder may be executed in two or more counterparts,
and by facsimile, all of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute one instrument.


 


	 	/s/ Aaron Chatterley
	 	Aaron Chatterley


 


	Acknowledged and Agreed:	 
	 	 
	WALDENCAST ACQUISITION CORP.	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Michel Brousset	 
	Name: 	Michel Brousset	 
	Title:	Chief Executive Officer	 


 


[Joinder to Letter Agreement]
**Exhibit31.2**

 

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

 

I, Linster W. Fox, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewedthis Annual Report on Form 10-K of Anacomp, Inc. (the“registrant”);

 

2.               Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely

 

----

 

affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: December 15, 2004 |
|------------------------------|
|                         |
|                         |
| /s/ Linster W.  Fox          |   |
| Linster W. Fox               |
| Chief Financial Officer      |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2777 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2777

   To repeal the American Recovery Capital loan program of the Small 
                        Business Administration.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 16, 2009

   Ms. Snowe introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To repeal the American Recovery Capital loan program of the Small 
                        Business Administration.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF AMERICAN RECOVERY CAPITAL LOAN PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--Section 506 of division A of the American Recovery 
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 157) is 
repealed.
    (b) Return of Funds.--Any unobligated balances of the amounts 
appropriated under the heading ``Business Loans Program Account'' under 
the heading ``SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION'' under title V of division 
A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 
111-5; 123 Stat. 151) for loan subsidies and loan modifications for 
loans to small business concerns authorized in section 506 of division 
A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 are rescinded.
    (c) Applicability.--Any loan guarantee under section 506 of 
division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 
entered into before the date of enactment of this Act, shall remain in 
full force and effect under the terms, and for the duration, of the 
loan guarantee.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2868 Referred in House (RFH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2868

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 2010

      Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To provide increased access to the General Services Administration's 
    Schedules Program by the American Red Cross and State and local 
                              governments.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Supply Schedules Usage Act 
of 2009''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF THE AMERICAN RED CROSS TO USE FEDERAL SUPPLY 
              SCHEDULES FOR CERTAIN GOODS AND SERVICES.

    Section 502 of title 40, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(e) Use of Supply Schedules by the Red Cross.--
            ``(1) In general.--The Administrator may provide for the 
        use by the American National Red Cross of Federal supply 
        schedules. Purchases under this authority shall be used in 
        furtherance of the purposes of the American National Red Cross 
        set forth in section 300102 of title 36, United States Code.
            ``(2) Limitation.--The authority under this subsection may 
        not be used to purchase supplies for resale.''.

SEC. 3. DUTY OF USERS REGARDING USE OF FEDERAL SUPPLY SCHEDULES.

    Section 502 of title 40, United States Code, as amended by section 
2, is further amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
    ``(f) Duty of Users Regarding Use of Supply Schedules.--All users 
of Federal supply schedules, including non-Federal users, shall use the 
schedules in accordance with the ordering guidance provided by the 
Administrator of General Services.''.

SEC. 4. AUTHORITY OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO USE SUPPLY 
              SCHEDULES FOR CERTAIN GOODS AND SERVICES.

    Subsection (d)(1) of section 502 of title 40, United States Code, 
is amended by inserting ``, to facilitate disaster preparedness or 
response,'' after ``Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.)''.

            Passed the Senate May 24, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                NANCY ERICKSON,

                                                             Secretary.
```