alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>6
<LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED 
FROM THE FORM 10-Q AS OF MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY 
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>1
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>           8,350,452
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>          5,285,099
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ASSETS-OTHER>                    127,757
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>              566,418
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  5,979,274
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                 0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>          55,393
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                55,393
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                         0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>        8,989,234
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>             150,570
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>             150,570
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>               0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                  0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                 0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>       (3,065,353)
<NET-ASSETS>                    5,923,881
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                       0
<INTEREST-INCOME>                   9,405
<OTHER-INCOME>                          0
<EXPENSES-NET>                    156,433
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>          (147,028)
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>                0
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>        (134,341)
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>            (281,369)
<EQUALIZATION>                          0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>               0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                   0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                 0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>             0
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                     0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>           (281,369)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                 0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>               0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                 0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>              0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>              31,716
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                   156,533
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>            6,064,565
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                  62
<PER-SHARE-NII>                        (1)
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                 0 <F1>
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                    0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>               0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                    0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                    61
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                       2.6
<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>                  0
<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>                    0
<FN>
<F1>
A zero value is used since the change in net unrealized fair value is not 
allocated to General Partners and Limited Partners as it is not taxable.  
Only taxable gains or losses are allocated in accordance with the 
Partnership Agreement.
</FN>

</TABLE>
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE 

CEMPRA, INC. 
 2011 EQUITY
INCENTIVE PLAN 
 This Amendment No. 1 (this “Amendment”) to the Cempra, Inc. 2011 Equity Incentive Plan, as
amended from time to time (the “Plan”), is made effective as of March 9, 2018. 
 WHEREAS, on November 3,
2017, Cempra, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), completed its business combination with Melinta Therapeutics, Inc., a privately held Delaware corporation dedicated to the development and commercialization of novel
antibiotics (“Melinta”), in accordance with the terms of an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, dated as of August 8, 2017, as amended on each of September 6, 2017 and October 24, 2017 (as so amended, the
“Merger Agreement”) by and among the Company, Melinta and Castle Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (“Merger Sub”); 

WHEREAS, on November 3, 2017, pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub merged with and into Melinta, with Melinta surviving
the merger and becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (the “Merger”); 
 WHEREAS, concurrently with the
effectiveness of the Merger, the Company changed its name to Melinta Therapeutics, Inc. and Melinta changed its name to Melinta Subsidiary Corp.; 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2(b)(vii) of the Plan, the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors (the
“Committee”) may, at any time and from time to time, amend the Plan; and 
 WHEREAS, the Committee desires to amend
the name of the Plan to reflect the change to the Company’s name to Melinta Therapeutics, Inc. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is
hereby amended, as follows: 
 1. Capitalized Terms. Capitalized terms that are not defined in this Amendment shall have
the meanings ascribed thereto in the Plan. 
 2. Amendment to the Plan. The name of the Plan and all references thereto
in the Plan are hereby amended and restated in their entirety from the “Cempra, Inc. 2011 Equity Incentive Plan” to the “Melinta Therapeutics, Inc. 2011 Equity Incentive Plan.” 

3. Ratification and Confirmation. Except as specifically amended by this Amendment, the Plan is hereby ratified and
confirmed in all respects and remains valid and in full force and effect. Whenever the Plan is referred to in this Amendment or in any other agreement, document or instrument, such reference shall be deemed to be to the Plan, as amended by this
Amendment, whether or not specific reference is made to this Amendment. 
 4. Governing Law. This Amendment shall be
governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Delaware, without reference to the principles of conflicts of laws thereof. 

5. Headings. Section headings are for convenience only and shall not be considered a part of this Amendment. 

*         *         *
H. Res. 1054

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 29, 2006.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany 

the bill (H.R. 5441) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes. All points of order 

against the conference report and against its consideration 

are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read. 

SEC. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 

in order without intervention of any point of order to consider 

in the House the bill (S. 3930) to authorize trial by military 

commission for violations of the law of war, and for other 

purposes. The bill shall be considered as read. The previous 

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final 

passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 

debate, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 

chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 

Armed Services and 20 minutes equally divided and con-
2

•HRES 1054 EH 

trolled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to commit. 

SEC. 3. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 

in order without intervention of any point of order to consider 

in the House the bill (H.R. 4772) to simplify and expedite 

access to the Federal courts for injured parties whose rights 

and privileges under the United States Constitution have 

been deprived by final actions of Federal agencies or other 

government officials or entities acting under color of State 

law, and for other purposes. The amendment in the nature 

of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. 

The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 

amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: 

(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 

chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 

the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

Attest:

Clerk.
Subpart 3005.4—Release of Information    **Parent topic:** PART 3005—PUBLICIZING CONTRACT ACTIONS3005.402 General public.       Requests for other specific records information shall be processed according to the DHS Freedom of Information Act rules and regulations (HSAR) 48 CFR 3024.203.3005.470 Contractor award announcements, advertisements, and releases.3005.470-1 Policy.       (a) DHS policy requires its contracting officers to restrict DHS contractors from referring to its DHS contract(s) in commercial advertising in a manner that states or implies the Government approves or endorses the contractor's products or services or considers them superior to other products or services. The intent of this policy is to prevent the appearance of Government bias toward any product or service.          (b) The Department's contractors share the responsibility for protecting sensitive and classified information related to efforts under their contracts. For any contract that involves sensitive or classified information, prior to the release of any contract award announcement, advertisement, or other release of information pertaining to the contract, the contractor must obtain the approval of the responsible contracting officer.3005.470-2 Contract clauses.       (a) Insert the clause at (HSAR) 48 CFR 3052.205–70, Advertisements, Publicizing Awards, and Releases, in all solicitations and contracts that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.          (b) Except for research contracts with educational institutions, if the contract involves sensitive or classified information, use the clause with its Alternate I. For research contracts with educational institutions, see (HSAR) 48 CFR 3035.70–2(b).
PGI PART 3 IMPROPER BUSINESS PRACTICES AND PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST       PGI SUBPART 3.1 – SAFEGUARDS                                                         PGI 3.104-4 Statutory and related prohibitions, restrictions, and requirements.    PGI SUBPART 3.1 – SAFEGUARDS     PGI 3.104-4 Statutory and related prohibitions, restrictions, and         requirements.     (a) Contractor and Agency personnel that require NDAs due to their assigned activities             will provide copies of their NDA to the contracting officer. This copy will become part             of the contract.         (b) Contractor and Agency personnel that frequently participate in activities that             require access to source selection information, CUI, or any other protected information             should sign a blanket NDA at the beginning of the fiscal year that is in effect for that             year. These personnel will provide a copy of their blanket NDA to each contracting             officer that requires their participation/expertise throughout the fiscal year. The             contracting officer will sign the copy and keep for the contract file.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 173 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 173

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Director 
       of National Intelligence should establish and oversee the 
  implementation of a uniform, multi-level security clearance system 
 across the intelligence community to fully leverage the cultural and 
 linguistic skills of subject matter experts and others proficient in 
            foreign languages critical to national security.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2005

   Ms. Harman (for herself, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Reyes, Mr. 
 Boswell, Mr. Cramer, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Holt, Mr. Ruppersberger, and Mr. 
Tierney) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
          Select Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select)

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Director 
       of National Intelligence should establish and oversee the 
  implementation of a uniform, multi-level security clearance system 
 across the intelligence community to fully leverage the cultural and 
 linguistic skills of subject matter experts and others proficient in 
            foreign languages critical to national security.

Whereas the security clearance process of the Federal Government often results 
        in undue delay in hiring intelligence community personnel with needed 
        skills and expertise;
Whereas many individuals possessing cultural knowledge and linguistic skills 
        critical to the national security of the United States do not need to be 
        cleared at the highest clearance level;
Whereas the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 will create 
        a more effective and efficient uniform security clearance process across 
        the Federal Government;
Whereas the President should ensure the prompt implementation of the security 
        clearance enhancement provisions contained in the Intelligence Reform 
        and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004; and
Whereas the prompt implementation of a uniform, multi-level security clearance 
        system across the intelligence community would greatly enhance the 
        ability of the intelligence community to carry out its mission: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the Director of National Intelligence should 
promptly establish and oversee the implementation of a uniform, multi-
level security clearance system across the intelligence community to 
fully leverage the cultural and linguistic skills of subject matter 
experts and individuals proficient in foreign languages critical to 
national security.
                                 <all>
```
H. Res. 242

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

April 28, 2005.

Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule

XIII for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House

is waived with respect to any resolution reported on the legislative day of April 28, 2005: (1) providing for consideration

or disposition of a conference report to accompany the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 95) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal

year 2006, revising appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal

year 2005, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for

fiscal years 2007 through 2010; or (2) establishing a separate order relating to budget enforcement.

Attest:

Clerk.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

ANGELA PRICE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) CASE NO. 3:06-cv-742-MEF

)

ROANOKE CITY BOARD OF )

EDUCATION, )

)

Defendant. )

O R D E R

It is ORDERED that this case is set for a pretrial hearing, as provided by Fed.R.Civ.P. 16,

on November 2, 2007 at 11:00 A.M. in the Chambers of the undersigned, United States Courthouse,

One Church Street, A-300, Montgomery, Alabama.

The pretrial hearing will be conducted in consideration of the matters provided for in Rule

16. All parties are expected to have fully complied with this court's Rule 16 order. All parties

should prepare and have ready all possible admissions of fact and documents which might avoid

unnecessary proof upon trial.

LEAD TRIAL COUNSEL FOR ALL PARTIES MUST BE PRESENT at the time above

designated and be fully prepared to state the facts of the case in the most minute detail and to admit

all facts that are true. Appropriate penalties will be imposed for failure to comply with these

requirements.

All motions WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN OTHERWISE SUBMITTED OR RULED ON will

be heard at the above stated time.

The parties are DIRECTED to JOINTLY prepare a proposed pretrial order in accordance

with the attached outline. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to e:mail the proposed pretrial order to

propord_fuller@almd.uscourts.gov in Word or WordPerfect format, to be received no later than

three business days prior to the pretrial hearing.

TRIAL TERM COMMENCES: December 10, 2007 in Opelika, Alabama.

DONE this 3rd day of October, 2007.

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 32 Filed 10/03/2007 Page 1 of 3
2

NOTICE TO ATTORNEYS

The proposed pretrial order must be joint, and not piecemeal, and it should be reviewed and

approved by all parties BEFORE the pretrial hearing.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

DIVISION

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 

)

)

Defendant. )

ORDER ON PRETRIAL HEARING

A pretrial hearing was held in this case on ______, wherein the following proceedings were

held and actions taken:

1. PARTIES AND TRIAL COUNSEL:

COUNSEL APPEARING AT PRETRIAL HEARING: (same as trial counsel) or

(indicate if different) ____________________

2. JURISDICTION AND VENUE:

3. PLEADINGS: The following pleadings and amendments were allowed:

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 32 Filed 10/03/2007 Page 2 of 3
3

4. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:

(a) The plaintiff(s)

(b) The defendant(s)

5. STIPULATIONS BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES:

PLEASE LEAVE ORDER UNFINISHED AT THIS POINT FOR COMPLETION BY THE

COURT.

Case 3:06-cv-00742-MEF-WC Document 32 Filed 10/03/2007 Page 3 of 3
§ 205.386 Temporary access to classified and sensitive information. ( a ) To the extent practicable, and consistent with obligations to protect classified and sensitive information, the Secretary may provide temporary access to classified and sensitive information, at the level necessary in light of the conditions of the incident, related to a grid security emergency for which emergency measures are issued to key personnel of any entity subject to such emergency measures, to the extent the Secretary deems necessary under the circumstances. The purpose of this access, as defined under section 215A(b)(7) of the Federal Power Act, is to enable optimum communication between the entity and the Secretary and other appropriate Federal agencies regarding the grid security emergency.
( b ) CEII will be shared, where deemed necessary by the Secretary, in accordance with 10 CFR part 1004.
#### Bell, administrator, *v.*Verdel, administrator.

Atkinson, J.

On September 25, 1884, D. B. Verdel filed suit in the superior court, on a promissory note, against J. B. Bell, returnable to the March term, 1885. No service of the petition and process was made on the defendant, but three days after the adjournment of the March term the defendant signed the following: “Due and legal service of the within writ acknowledged. Copy, copy process, and all other or further notice waived.” At the next September term (no defense having been filed) judgment was rendered for the plaintiff by default. Execution was issued on October 13, 1885, and thereafter in 1890, 1896, and 1901 the sheriff entered returns of nulla bona on the execution. In 1911 the administrator of Verdel, with the will annexed, filed suit in the superior court to revive the judgment, alleged to have become dormant. The defendant having died, his administrator instituted separate suit to enjoin the scire facias proceeding, on the ground that the judgment was void ab initio, because it was rendered at the appearance term of the court and the defendant was not afforded his day in court, and, if revived, the judgment would operate as a cloud on title. No demurrer was filed, but the answer set up that the plaintiff had a complete remedy at law. The hearing was had on the petition and answer, and certain evidence, whereby the case was presented as stated above. The judge dissolved the restraining order previously granted, and refused an ad interim injunction. The exception is to this judgment.. *Held:*

1. The acknowledgment of service by the defendant entered after the ap*769pearanee term is not to be construed as an acknowledgment that the petition and process had been legally served on the defendant the requisite time before the appearance term.

October 15, 1913.

Petition for injunction. Before *Judge*Meadow. Elbert superior court. August 31, 1912.

*G. G. Grogan,*for plaintiff. *Worley & Nall,*for defendant.

2. The judgment rendered at the next ensuing term after the acknowledgment was void. *Harrell*v. *Davis Wagon Co.,*140 *Ga.*127 (78 S. E. 713).

3. Being void, the judgment will not be revived under the Civil Code, § 5973 et seq.

4. Invalidity of the judgment could be set up by way of defense in the scire facias proceeding to revive the judgment *(Thomas*v. *Towns,*66 *Ga.*78), and there was no error in refusing the injunction.

*Judgment affirmed,.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Opinion issued April 29, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-20-00644-CR

NO. 01-20-00645-CR

NO. 01-20-00646-CR

———————————

IN RE THE STATE OF TEXAS EX REL. KIM OGG, HARRIS COUNTY 

DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, the State of Texas ex rel. Kim Ogg, Harris County District Attorney, 

seeks mandamus relief concerning the trial court’s August 28, 2020 order requiring 

production of offense reports S-19-07 and NS-20-08 and mapping documents, power 

points, or reports prepared by Harris County District Attorney’s Office Investigator 
2

Nathaniel Gates.

1

 Relator also requested a stay of the trial court’s ruling pending 

disposition of this mandamus.

We deny the petitions. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Any pending motions are 

dismissed as moot.2 The stay of the trial court’s August 28, 2020 order is now lifted.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Landau, and Hightower.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

1 The underlying cases are The State of Texas v. Hodgie Armstrong, cause numbers

1680891, 1684289, and 1684291, pending in the 228th District Court of Harris

County, Texas, the Honorable Frank Aguilar presiding.

2 The relator’s supplemental brief, tendered on December 2, 2020, was filed and 

considered by the Court. The motion for leave to file is dismissed as moot.