alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Form of Side Letter from Sprout Capital IX, L.P.



 EXHIBIT 10.48 
  
 SPROUT CAPITAL IX, L.P. 
 3000 Sand Hill Road, Suite 170 
 Menlo Park, CA 94024 
  
 November     , 2003 
  
 ISTA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 
 Attn: Lauren P. Silvernail, CFO 
 15279 Alton Parkway 
 Suite 100 
 Irvine, CA 92618 
  

	 	Re:	 	Public Offering of Shares of Common Stock of ISTA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) 

  
 Dear Lauren: 
  
 In connection with the firm-commitment underwritten public offering of shares of the Company’s common stock pursuant to a Registration Statement on
Form S-2 (Registration No. 333-109576) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Registration Statement”), we have requested that the Company include
                 shares of the Company’s common stock held by us (the “Selling Stockholder Shares”) for sale to the underwriters pursuant to the terms of
an underwriting agreement to be entered into between and among the Company, the underwriters and selling stockholders identified in the Underwriting Agreement. 
  

In connection with the offering and sale of the Selling Stockholders Shares, the Company has agreed to pay for all out-of-pocket costs and expenses
incurred by us in connection with the preparation and filing of the Registration Statement and other activities customarily associated with public offerings of the type contemplated by the Registration Statement, including, without limitation, all
fees and expenses of our legal counsel. We shall pay that portion of the underwriter’s discounts and commissions equal to the proportion of the Selling Stockholder Shares to the total shares of the Company’s common stock registered in the
offering as contemplated by the Registration Statement. 
  
 In
addition, we hereby acknowledge and confirm that the statements set forth in the Registration Statement, as amended or supplemented, including any prospectus contained therein, regarding our name, the description of how we hold the shares contained
on page      footnote      or that we own                  shares of capital stock as set forth on page     ,
are true in all material respects and that there is no omission or alleged omission to state therein a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein in the light of the circumstances under which they were
made not misleading. 







 November     , 2003 
 Page Two 
  
 By countersigning
this letter in the space provided below, you agree to accept the terms set forth set forth herein. 
  
 Very truly yours, 
  
  
 AGREED AND ACCEPTED AS TO CONTENT AND FORM: 
  

	ISTA	 	Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 

  

	  

 Lauren P. Silvernail, Chief Financial Officer
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 19 - 0738

_________________ ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. AMBER MARIE BURNETT,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ This ca u se , which was previously classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel , i s hereby re classified for submission to the Court sitting en banc. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of r ecord . For the Court,

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

January 12 2022

01/12/2022
Case Number: DA 19-0738
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2021 Fiscal Transparency Report…Algeria

# 					2021 Fiscal Transparency Report: Algeria			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Algeria 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Algeria

During the review period, the government made significant progress by publishing its executive budget proposal within a reasonable period of time.  The government published its enacted budget online but did not publish an end-of-year report within a reasonable period of time.  Limited information regarding debt obligations was publicly available.  Publicly available information did not provide a comprehensive treatment of allocations to and earnings from state-owned enterprises.  The government maintained off-budget accounts, though they were subject to public audits.  The information in the budget was generally reliable, and the government published budget execution reports.  The supreme audit institution audited the government’s executed budget, with the exception of certain military equipment purchases, and published its reports online.  The criteria and procedures by which the national government awarded natural resource contracts or licenses were specified in law and appeared to be followed in practice.  Basic information on natural resource extraction awards was publicly available. Algeria’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- publishing its end-of-year reports within a reasonable period of time; and
- providing additional detail regarding debt obligations, revenues, and expenditures in the budget, including those of state-owned enterprises.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Algeria 

Tags

AlgeriaBureau of Economic and Business AffairsDivision for International Finance and Development

Back to Top

                - White House
                - USA.gov
                - Office of the Inspector General
                - Archives
                - Contact Us

follow us
FacebookXInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery

              - Privacy Policy
              - Accessibility Statement
              - Copyright Information
              - FOIA
              - No FEAR Act

## U.S. Department *of* State

#### The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future
41959.

#### HASKIN v. CARSON.

Submitted April 5, 1966

Decided April 21, 1966.

*Sumner & Boatright, J. Laddie Boatright,*for appellant.

*M. L. Preston,*for appellee.

Hall, Judge.

1. The trial court did not err in overruling the defendant’s demurrer to an entire paragraph of the plaintiff’s petition and the attached itemization of the account sued on, as some items alleged in the paragraph were not subject to the objections raised by the demurrer. *Devine v. Geiger,*100 Ga. App. 245, 247 (110 SE2d 687): accord *Washington Water &c. Co. v. Pope Mfg. Co.,*176 Ga. 155, 164 (167 SE 286).

2. The trial court did not err in sustaining the plaintiff’s demurrers and allowing time for amendment to an allegation of the defendant’s answer, on the ground that it failed to show the dates and amounts of the alleged payments and in what manner they were made. *Epstein & Bro. Co. v. Thomas,*15 Ga. App. 741 (84 SE 201); accord *Wortham v. Sinclair,*98 Ga. 173, 175 (25 SE 41).

3. The trial court erred in sustaining the ground of the demurrer that the defendant did not allege to whom the alleged payments were made, as the answer alleged that the payments were made to the plaintiff.....

*Judgment sustaining demurrers to defendant’s answer reversed with direction that it be modified in accordance with Divisions 2 and 3; judgment overruling demurrers to plaintiff’s petition affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.*
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk February 18, 2009 

# Order

February 18, 2009

136751(102)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 136751 v COA: 268499 Wayne CC: 05-010897-01 KOBEAY QURAN SWAFFORD, Defendant-Appellant.

___________________ __________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by plai ntiff-appellee for extension of the time for filing their brief is consider ed and the time for filing is extended to January 2, 2009.
# EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the filing of the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) by FCCC, Inc. (the
Registrant), I, Bernard Zimmerman, President, Chief Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify that:

|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 conditions and results of operations of
Registrant.
|-- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 
| | 
| | 

| | Name: Bernard Zimmerman                     
| | --------------------------------------------
| | Title: President and Chief Executive Officer

Dated:   August 5, 2008

---
#### THE UNITED STATES v. HARRY W. LUSKEY.

[56 C. Cls. 411; 262 U.S. 62.]

Judgment was rendered against the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was *affirmed,*and the Supreme Court decided:

The additional pay provided by the act of March 3, 1915, c. 83, 38 Stat. 928, for enlisted men in the Navy and Marine Corps, “ while lawfully detailed for duty involving actual flying in aircraft,” goes to the person so detailed irrespective of the number of flights made by him.

Mr. Justice McKenna

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court April 16, 1923.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed July 14, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-150 Lower Tribunal Nos. 20-148 AP, 19-8673 CC

________________ 

### Nahid M F International, Inc. ,

Appellant, vs. 

### Madison Acquisitions Corp. ,

Appellee. An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Michael G. Barket, Judge. Shlomo Y. Hecht, P.A., and Shlomo Y Hecht (Miramar), for appellant. Legon Fodiman, P.A., Todd A. Fodiman and Wendy V. Polit, for appellee. Before EMAS, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. See Ebsary Found. Co. v. Barnett Bank of S. Fla., N.A., 569 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 179 (Thursday, September 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 47788]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22385]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Notice of Class Deviation Approval

AGENCY: National Energy Technology Laboratory, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of class deviation approval.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the approval of a Class Deviation to the 
regulations at 10 CFR part 600. The Department is publicizing notice of 
the Class Deviation approval to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 
600.4(d). The effect of this action is that the Department may require 
the submission of monthly performance reports on projects selected 
under the Clean Coal Power Initiative--Round 3 Funding Opportunity 
Announcement.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brittley Robbins at (412) 386-5430.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the relevant Subparts of the 
Department of Energy's Financial Assistance Regulations, which 
prescribe performance reporting, 10 CFR 600.151, 240, and 341, 
reporting shall not be required more frequently than quarterly or less 
frequently than annually. For projects selected under the Clean Coal 
Power Initiative--Round 3 (CCPI-3) Funding Opportunity Announcement, 
the Department determined that quarterly reporting was insufficient to 
adequately monitor progress and assess risk as they do not provide 
current information, and do not allow the Department to identify and 
address problems in a timely manner. Projects selected under the CCPI-3 
Announcement will be commercial scale demonstration projects which are 
inherently complex, integrating novel carbon capture technology into 
commercial operations of a coal-fired power generation facility, which 
will in turn be integrated with a large-scale sequestration facility. 
All demonstration projects under the Clean Coal Power Initiative 
Program carry an inherent degree of risk because they incorporate 
innovative technology, either being introduced for the first time or in 
an untried configuration at the commercial scale.
    To ensure that cooperative agreements awarded under the Clean Coal 
Power Initiative--Round 3 Funding Opportunity Announcement meet their 
objectives on schedule and within budget, the Department pursued a 
Class Deviation from the regulations at 10 CFR 600.151, 240, and 341 to 
allow for monthly performance reporting.
    On April 8, 2008, the Office of Management and Budget approved the 
Department's request for the Class Deviation.

    Issued in Pittsburgh, PA on September 10, 2009.
Raymond D. Johnson,
Contracting Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-22385 Filed 9-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
§ 21.3022 Nonduplication—programs administered by VA. A person who is eligible for educational assistance under 38 U.S.C. chapter 35 and is also eligible for assistance under any of the provisions of law listed in this paragraph cannot receive such assistance concurrently. The eligible person must choose which benefit he or she will receive for the particular period(s) of training during which education or training is to be pursued. The individual may choose to receive benefits under another program (other than 38 U.S.C. chapter 33) at any time, but not more than once in a calendar month. The individual may choose to receive benefits under 38 U.S.C. chapter 33 at any time, but not more than once during a certified term, quarter, or semester. ( a ) 38 U.S.C. chapter 30 (Montgomery GI Bill—Active Duty);
( b ) 38 U.S.C. chapter 31 (Veteran Readiness and Employment (VR&E));
( c ) 38 U.S.C. chapter 32 (Post-Vietnam Era Veterans' Educational Assistance);
( d ) 38 U.S.C. chapter 33 (Post-9/11 GI Bill);
( e ) 10 U.S.C. chapter 1606 (Montgomery GI Bill—Selected Reserve);
( f ) 10 U.S.C. chapter 1607 (Reserve Educational Assistance Program);
( g ) 10 U.S.C. chapter 106a (Educational Assistance Test Program);
( h ) Section 903 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1981 (Pub. L. 96-342, 10 U.S.C. 2141 note.);
( i ) The Hostage Relief Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-449, 5 U.S.C. 5561 note.); and
( j ) The Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-399).
(Authority: 10 U.S.C. 16136(b), 16166(b); 38 U.S.C. 3322, 3681)
[74 FR 14665, Mar. 31, 2009, as amended at 87 FR 8743, Feb. 16, 2022]
§ 93.307 Institutional inquiry. ( a ) *Criteria warranting an inquiry.* An inquiry is warranted if the allegation— ( 1 ) Falls within the definition of research misconduct under this part;
( 2 ) Is within § 93.102; and
( 3 ) Is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified.
( b ) *Notice to respondent and custody of research records.* At the time of or before beginning an inquiry, an institution must make a good faith effort to notify in writing the presumed respondent, if any. If the inquiry subsequently identifies additional respondents, the institution must notify them. To the extent it has not already done so at the allegation stage, the institution must, on or before the date on which the respondent is notified or the inquiry begins, whichever is earlier, promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all the research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding, inventory the records and evidence, and sequester them in a secure manner, except that where the research records or evidence encompass scientific instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence on such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments.
( c ) *Review of evidence.* The purpose of an inquiry is to conduct an initial review of the evidence to determine whether to conduct an investigation. Therefore, an inquiry does not require a full review of all the evidence related to the allegation.
( d ) *Criteria warranting an investigation.* An inquiry's purpose is to decide if an allegation warrants an investigation. An investigation is warranted if there is— ( 1 ) A reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct under this part and involves PHS supported biomedical or behavioral research, research training or activities related to that research or research training, as provided in § 93.102; and
( 2 ) Preliminary information-gathering and preliminary fact-finding from the inquiry indicates that the allegation may have substance.
( e ) *Inquiry report.* The institution must prepare a written report that meets the requirements of this section and § 93.309.
( f ) *Opportunity to comment.* The institution must provide the respondent an opportunity to review and comment on the inquiry report and attach any comments received to the report.
( g ) *Time for completion.* The institution must complete the inquiry within 60 calendar days of its initiation unless circumstances clearly warrant a longer period. If the inquiry takes longer than 60 days to complete, the inquiry record must include documentation of the reasons for exceeding the 60-day period.
§ 21.446 Scoring and selection. ( a ) *Scoring.* VA will score only complete applications received from eligible entities by the deadline established in the NOFA. VA will score applications using the following criteria: ( 1 ) *Project description.* Applicant identifies and describes an intervention that is designed to improve employment outcomes for Veterans with service-connected disabilities through a PFS agreement and demonstrates with strong evidence the ability of the intervention to meet objectives. Project description should explain and justify the need for the intervention, and include concept, size and scope of the project, and the Veteran population to be served.
( 2 ) *Project partnership.* Applicant provides a description of the partnership and the level of partnership (full, partial, or none) attained at the time of application.
( 3 ) *Work plan and budget.* Applicant provides a work plan that describes in detail the timeline for the tasks outlined in the project description and proposed milestones. Applicant provides a budget that specifies amount of outcome payments and indirect and other relevant costs.
( 4 ) *Expertise and capacity.* Applicant provides evidence of its past experience with PFS or other social finance strategies or experience administering programs that serve Veterans with disabilities, and of its ability and capacity to successfully administer the project.
( 5 ) *Match.* Applicant provides evidence of secured cash matching (1:1) funds or of its ability to secure or commitments to receive such funds.
( b ) *Selection of recipients.* All complete applications from eligible entities will be scored using the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section and ranked in order from highest to lowest total score. NOFA announcements may also clarify the selection criteria in paragraph (a). The relative weight (point value) for each selection criterion will be specified in the NOFA. Point values will be assigned according to the criterion's importance in ensuring the successful development and implementation of a VEPFS project. VA will award any VEPFS grant on the primary basis of scores but will also consider a risk assessment evaluation.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3119)
----

Information procedure — Technical rules

(2004/C 309/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services. (OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37; OJ L 217, 5.8.1998, p. 18).

Notifications of draft national technical rules received by the Commission

The Commission draws attention to the judgement delivered on 30 April 1996 in the ‘CIA Security’ case (C-194/94 – ECR I, p. 2201), in which the Court of Justice ruled that Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 98/34/EC (formerly 83/189/EEC) are to be interpreted as meaning that individuals may rely on them before national courts which must decline to apply a national technical regulation which has not been notified in accordance with the Directive.

This judgement confirms the Commission's communication of 1 October 1986 (OJ C 245, 1.10.1986, p. 4).

Accordingly, breach of the obligation to notify renders the technical regulations concerned inapplicable, and consequently unenforceable against individuals.

For more information on the notification procedure, please write to:

Also consult the website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/tris/

If you require any further information on these notifications, please contact the national departments listed below:

LIST OF NATIONAL DEPARTMENTS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DIRECTIVE 98/34/EC

BELGIUM

CZECH REPUBLIC

DENMARK

GERMANY

ESTONIA

GREECE

SPAIN

FRANCE

IRELAND

ITALY

CYPRUS

LATVIA

LITHUANIA

LUXEMBOURG

HUNGARY

MALTA

NETHERLANDS

AUSTRIA

POLAND

PORTUGAL

SLOVENIA

SLOVAKIA

FINLAND

SWEDEN

UNITED KINGDOM

EFTA - ESA

TURKEY

----

(1)  Year - registration number - Member State of origin.

(2)  Period during which the draft may not be adopted.

(3)  No standstill period since the Commission accepts the grounds of urgent adoption invoked by the notifying Member State.

(4)  No standstill period since the measure concerns technical specifications or other requirements or rules on services linked to fiscal or financial measures, pursuant to the third indent of the second paragraph of Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC.

(5)  Information procedure closed.

----
Order issued February 26 , 201 5 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

________________________________________

No. 05

- 1 4

- 0 0 644

- CR

________________________________________

WAYNE EDWARD GREER , Appellant



### V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee



### O R D E R

Before Justices Lang, Stoddart, and Schenck

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we GRANT the October 31, 2014 motion of

Riann C. Moore for leave to withdraw as appointed counsel on appeal. We DIRECT the Clerk

of the Court to remove Riann C. Moore as counsel of record for appellant. We DIRECT the

Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order and all future corr espondence to Wayne Edward

Greer, Book

- in No. 13069727, North Tower 5E08, Dallas Count Jail, P.O. Box 660334, Dallas,

Texas, 75266

- 0334.

/ Craig Stoddart/

CRAIG STODDART

JUSTICE