alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §5113. Investigation of claims

For the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of any claim filed under this subpart, the Secretary is authorized to examine any books, papers, records, or memoranda bearing upon the matters required to be alleged in the claim, to require the attendance of the person filing the claim or of any officer or employee of such person or the attendance of any other person having knowledge in the premises, to take testimony with reference to any matter covered by the claim, and to administer oaths to any person giving such testimony.

(Added Pub. L. 85–859, title II, §201, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1346, §5133; amended Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834; renumbered §5113, Pub. L. 109–59, title XI, §11125(b)(3)(A), Aug. 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 1953.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5113, added Pub. L. 85–859, title II, §201, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1340; amended Pub. L. 87–863, §4(b), Oct. 23, 1962, 76 Stat. 1142; Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §§1905(a)(7), 1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1819, 1834; Pub. L. 100–647, title II, §2004(t)(2), (4), Nov. 10, 1988, 102 Stat. 3609, 3610, related to exemptions from tax, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 109–59, title XI, §11125(a)(1)(C), (c), Aug. 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 1953, 1957, effective July 1, 2008, but inapplicable to taxes imposed for periods before such date.

Another prior section 5113, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 619, related to exemptions from tax, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859.

#### Amendments

2005—Pub. L. 109–59 renumbered section 5133 of this title as this section.

1976—Pub. L. 94–455 struck out "or his delegate" after "Secretary".
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Case No. 1:20-cv-22230-KMM 

WINDY LUCIUS, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

MIAMI DOLPHINS, LTD., 

Defendant.

 / 

ORDER

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Entry of 

Proposed Consent Decree. (ECF No. 11). The Court finds the Consent Decree to be fundamentally 

fair, adequate and reasonable to improve and provide access for persons with disabilities to the 

services at issue, and to otherwise meet the purposes of Title III of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181, et seq. Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the 

Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it 

hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Unopposed Motion for Entry of Proposed Consent 

Decree (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED. The Court hereby APPROVES and ENTERS the Consent 

Decree. This cause is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

To the extent not otherwise disposed of herein, all pending motions are hereby DENIED

as moot, and the Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this ___ day of July, 2020. 

K. MICHAEL MOORE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

c: all counsel of record 

28th

Case 1:20-cv-22230-KMM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2020 Page 1 of 1
"COUNCIL MEMBER FUKUNAGA: Good evening

and Aloha. I'm Carole Fukunaga, city council

member representing the Aiea and Moanalua area, and

I also chair the city council's Public Works

Infrastructure and Sustainability Committee.

I wanted to advise the EPA and Department

of Health that the Honolulu City Council is in

strong support of Board of Water Supply's position,

and that we have adopted a resolution calling for -- calling for the U.S. Navy to immediately

fortify containment of the 20 tanks at Red Hill and

clean up the existing groundwater contamination

under the facility to protect Oahu's groundwater.

We also urge the Navy to consider

additional protective measures and tank integrity

improvements to reinforce the Red Hill Fuel Storage

Facility as needed. We also urge Board of Water

Supply, Department of Health, EPA and the U.S. Navy

to install additional groundwater monitoring wells

and to increase the frequency of all monitoring and

sampling activities in the Red Hill Fuel Storage

Facility to enhance petroleum detection in the monitoring wells.

We very much appreciate all of the

participants who have come here tonight, and thank

you for this opportunity to provide comment.

(Applause.)

"
Exhibit
10.21


 


AMENDMENT
TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This
Amendment (the “Amendment”) to Employment Agreement is made as of August 12, 2020 (the “Amendment Date”)
between Lixte Biotechnology Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Eric Forman “(“Employee)
with reference to the following:


 


		A.	The
                                         parties hereto have entered into an Employment Agreement dated July 15, 2020 (the “Employment
                                         Agreement”) pursuant to which the Company hired Employee to serve as Company’s
                                         Chief Administrative Officer. Defined Terms not defined herein shall have the meanings
                                         ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement.



 


		B.	The
                                         parties wish to amend the Employment Agreement as provided below.



 


NOW
THEREFORE, the parties agree to amend Exhibit A of the Employment Agreement as follows:


 


		1.	Compensation.
	 	 	 



		a.	In
                                         consideration of Employee’s increasing responsibilities as Chief Administrative
                                         Officer, the Company will pay Employee One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($120,000)
                                         annually, paid monthly.



		b.	Employee
                                         shall receive options to purchase up to three hundred and fifty thousand (350,000) shares
                                         of the Company’s Common Stock (the “Options”). The Options shall have
                                         a term of five (5) years, and an exercise price equal to the closing price of the Company’s
                                         Common Stock on the Effective Date. The options shall vest as to twenty-five (25%) percent
                                         on the Effective Date and twenty-five (25%) percent on each of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd
                                         anniversaries of the Effective Date.



 


		2.	Effect
                                         of Employment Agreement. Except as provided herein, all of the terms of the Employment
                                         Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.



 


	 	LIXTE BIOTECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS, INC.
	 	 	                        
	 	 	/s/ John Kovach
	 	NAME:	John
    Kovach, MD
	 	TITLE:
    	President
    & CEO
	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/ Eric Forman
	 	NAME:	Eric
    Forman
Editorial Note on Part 124
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 124 appear at 72 FR 50040, Aug. 30, 2007, and 76 FR 8253, Feb. 11, 2011.

§ 124.206 What appeal rights are available to an applicant that has been denied admission? ( a ) An applicant may appeal a denial of program admission to SBA's Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA), if it is based solely on a negative finding of social disadvantage, economic disadvantage, ownership, control, or any combination of these four criteria. A denial decision that is based at least in part on the failure to meet any other eligibility criterion is not appealable and is the final decision of SBA.
( b ) [Reserved]
( b ) The applicant may initiate an appeal by filing a petition in accordance with part 134 of this chapter with OHA within 45 days after the applicant receives the Agency decision.
( c ) If an appeal is filed with OHA, the written decision of the Administrative Law Judge is the final Agency decision. If an appealable decision is not appealed, the decision of the AA/BD is the final Agency decision.
[63 FR 35739, June 30, 1998, as amended at 67 FR 47246, July 18, 2002; 74 FR 45753, Sept. 4, 2009; 85 FR 66185, Oct. 16, 2020]
Yosemite National Park 2020
(No. 713

Claimant awarded $631.00.)

#### A. C. Clark & Co., Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May 1, 1925.*

Franchise *tax*— refund *may loe made.*This case is similar to that of *Serenden Milling Go.*v. *State, supra,*and the decision of the court there announced governs this claim.

Bulkey, Moore & Tallmadge, for claimant.

Oscar, E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court: -

This is a claim for the recovery of franchise tax amounting to $631.00, erroneously paid to the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois in the year 1921.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois is, as a matter of law, sustained.

On the grounds of equity and social justice, we award claimant the sum of $631.00.
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 16

**Question 16:** Will the Emergency Action Levels (EAL) as part of the Emergency Plans have to be changed if based on the old Part 20 methodology?

**Answer:** The EALs are not related to Part 20. Appendix 1 of NUREG-0654 contains the descriptions for the four emergency classifications; unusual event, alert, site area emergency, and general emergency. Example initiating conditions are also found in this appendix. No reference is made to the use or applicability of Part 20 in either the regulations pertinent to emergency classifications nor in the guidance. In the class descriptions, reference is made to EPA protective action guide (PAG) exposure levels.

EPA has revised its PAG manual. EPA recommends the use of committed effective dose equivalent to replace the whole body dose for the plume PAG. The numerical values for the plume PAG remain the same. It is therefore expected that the licensees will have to revise, if necessary, their emergency dose calculation methodology to classify an emergency and recommend protective actions in order to comply with the revised EPA PAG manual.

(Reference: 50.47, EPA PAG manual)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, November 07, 2017
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0202 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SEIDEL PINE,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including February 28, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 21 2022

01/21/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0202
### §512. Attorney General to advise heads of executive departments

The head of an executive department may require the opinion of the Attorney General on questions of law arising in the administration of his department.

(Added Pub. L. 89–554, §4(c), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 613.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 304. | R.S. §356. |

Statutes at Large
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 379

**Question 379:** Should radioactive noble gas concentrations be excluded
> 
(a) with regard to evaluating and posting Airborne Radioactivity Areas and

(b) in determining Derived Air Concentration-hours (DAC-hours)? The definition of Airborne Radioactivity Area refers to areas where airborne radioactivity concentrations exceed the DAC values or where an individual could exceed 12 DAC-hours in a week. DAC is defined as the "concentration of a specific radionuclide in air which, if breathed...results in an intake of one ALI [Annual Limit on Intake]." The values listed for radioactive noble gases in the DAC column in 10 CFR 20 Appendix B are identified as "submersion" values that apply to external, rather than internal, exposure. Also, there are no ALI values listed in 10 CFR 20 Appendix B for radioactive noble gases. From this, it appears that radioactive noble gas concentrations do not apply to evaluating and posting Airborne Radioactivity Areas or to DAC-hour determinations?

**Answer:**
> 
(a) Radioactive noble gas concentrations should not be excluded with regard to evaluating and posting airborne radioactivity areas. See the discussion below.

(b) Radioactive noble gases of the "submersion" class (which have no inhalation ALI) should be excluded in determining DAC hours for use in determining the committed effective dose equivalent (CEDE). In other words, the DACs for noble gases are based on external dose and should not be used to assess internal dose.

**Discussion:** The following discussion relates to the posting question. Although the definition of DAC in 10 CFR 20.1003 does not include concentrations calculated on the basis of the external dose resulting from "submersion," Appendix B clearly states that the DAC values listed in Table 1 of Appendix B "relate to one of two modes of exposure: either external submersion or the internal committed dose equivalents resulting from inhalation of radioactive materials." The definition of "airborne radioactivity area" refers to "...concentrations - (1) In excess of the derived air concentrations (DACs) specified in Appendix B...." Thus, the definition of "airborne radioactivity area" includes the DACs in Appendix B that are noble gases and that are based on "submersion." The preamble to revised Part 20 (56 FR 23379, second and third columns) also indicates that areas that meet the definition of "airborne radioactivity area" because of the presence of noble gases are required to be posted.)

(References: 10 CFR 20.1902, 10 CFR 20.1003)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, November 24, 2017
### [§963. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–12, title VI, §602(a)(1), Mar. 29, 1975, 89 Stat. 58]

Section, added Pub. L. 87–834, §12(a), Oct. 16, 1962, 76 Stat. 1023; amended Pub. L. 88–272, title I, §123(b), Feb. 26, 1964, 78 Stat. 29; Pub. L. 90–364, title I, §102(b), June 28, 1968, 82 Stat. 255; Pub. L. 91–53, §5(b), Aug. 7, 1969, 83 Stat. 95; Pub. L. 91–172, title VII, §701(b), Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 659, dealt with the receipt of minimum distributions by domestic corporations.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective with respect to taxable years for foreign corporations beginning after Dec. 31, 1975, and to taxable years of United States shareholders (within the meaning of section 951(b) of this title) within which or with which such taxable years of such foreign corporations end, see section 602(f) of Pub. L. 94–12, set out as an Effective Date note under section 954 of this title.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-cv-80929-MIDDLEBROOKS

HOWARD COHAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

TURNPIKE DONUTS LLC,

Defendant.

________________________________________/

ORDER CLOSING CASE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With 

Prejudice filed by Plaintiff Howard Cohan on June 24, 2020. (DE 5). Plaintiff seeks to dismiss this 

case with prejudice. Pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff may 

voluntarily dismiss an action by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either 

an answer or a motion for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Defendant has 

served neither. Accordingly, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

1) This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

2) The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE THIS CASE and DENY all pending motions AS 

MOOT. 

3) Each party shall bear its own fees and costs.

SIGNED in Chambers, at West Palm Beach, Florida, this 25

th day of June, 2020. 

________________________________

DONALD M. MIDDLEBROOKS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 9:20-cv-80929-DMM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 1 of 1
*

 The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument

pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and

judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of res judicata,

collateral estoppel, and law of the case. The court generally disfavors the citation

of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JUL 18 2003

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

MITCHELL THEOPHILUS

GARRAWAY,

Petitioner-Appellant, No. 03-1003

v. (D. Colorado)

UNITED STATES BUREAU OF

PRISONS,

 

 Respondent-Appellee.

(D.C. No. 02-Z-2201)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before EBEL , HENRY , and HARTZ , Circuit Judges.

Mitchell Theophilus Garraway, a federal prisoner serving his sentence in an

institution in Florence, Colorado, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 action challenging the

United States Bureau of Prisons (BOP’s) allegedly illegal disclosure of

confidential information. He alleged that the disclosure of this information
-2-

caused the United States Parole Commission to deny him parole. He seeks

immediate release from custody.

The district court dismissed Mr. Garraway’s action without prejudice. We

conclude that this disposition was proper. Because Mr. Garraway is challenging

the decision of the Parole Commission, he must name that agency as a party and

must exhaust his administrative remedies. See, e.g. , Brown v. Smith , 828 F.2d

1493, 1495 (10th Cir. 1987) (citing regulations that allowed the plaintiff to

contest the Parole Commission’s decisions and concluding that “[t]his

administrative remedy must be utilized before a suit can be brought pursuant to §

2241[]”); Fuller v. Rich , 11 F.3d 61, 62 (5th Cir. 1994) (stating that “[a] prisoner

challenging a Parole Commission decision is required to exhaust administrative

remedies before seeking habeas relief in federal court”). 

Accordingly, for substantially the same reasons as the district court, we

AFFIRM the dismissal of Mr. Garraway’s § 2241 petition without prejudice. 

Entered for the Court,

Robert H. Henry

Circuit Judge
<PAGE>   1
Exhibit 11
ENTREMED, INC.

COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         Three Months Ended            Nine Months Ended
                                                              September 30,              September 30,
                                                        1997           1996          1997            1996
                                                   ---------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                              <C>              <C>            <C>            <C>
Weighted average common and common
equivalent shares outstanding during the period      12,219,288     11,993,912    12,132,660      8,710,439

Effect of common stock issued and stock options
and warrants granted subsequent to April 12, 1995
computed in accordance with the treasury stock
method as required by the SEC (1)                         -            -              -             283,775
                                                   ---------------------------------------------------------

Total common and common equivalent shares            12,219,288     11,993,912    12,132,660      8,994,214
                                                   =========================================================

Net loss                                          $  (1,820,963)  $ (1,379,087) $ (4,424,963)   $(3,519,432)
                                                   =========================================================

Net loss per share                                $       (0.15)  $      (0.11)  $     (0.36)   $     (0.39)
                                                   =========================================================
</TABLE>



(1) Pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin
No. 83, Common and Preferred Stock issued and stock options and warrants grants
at prices below the initial public offering price of $15.00 per share during
the 12-month period immediately preceding the initial filing date of the
Company's Registration Statement for its initial public offering have been
included as outstanding for all periods presented using the treasury stock
method.





                                       13
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HAMID MICHAEL HEJAZI, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

OREGON SUPREME COURT, public 

entity; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-35151 

D.C. No. 6:19-cv-01667-HZ 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2021**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Hamid Michael Hejazi appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims for failure to pay the 

filing fee after the district court denied his application to proceed in forma 

pauperis. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 22 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 

of discretion the denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 

920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We may affirm on any basis supported by the 

record. Id. at 617. We affirm.

Denial of Hejazi’s request to proceed in forma pauperis was not an abuse of 

discretion because the allegations in Hejazi’s complaint were frivolous and without 

merit. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (“[The] term ‘frivolous,’ 

when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, 

but also the fanciful factual allegation.”); O’Loughlin, 920 F.2d at 617 (defining 

“frivolous” as having no arguable basis in fact or law); Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank 

& Tr., 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A district court may deny leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed 

complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hejazi’s motion for 

reconsideration because Hejazi failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch. 

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th 

Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).

AFFIRMED.