alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.3


 





Aethlon Medical, Inc.


2005 Directors Compensation
Program


as adopted in February 2005


 


In February 2005, the Board of Directors (the
“Board”) of Aethlon Medical, Inc. (the “Company”) adopted the Company’s 2005 Directors
Compensation Program, in which only non-employee directors of the Company may participate, as follows:


 


		A.	Newly Elected Directors: A newly elected director will receive a one-time grant of options to acquire shares of common
stock equal to 1.5% of the common stock outstanding at the time of election, with an exercise price based on the average of the
closing bid prices of the common stock for the last ten trading days prior to the date of grant. These options will have a term
of ten years and will vest 1/3 upon grant and 1/3 upon each of the first two anniversaries of the date of grant.



 


		B.	Existing Eligible Directors: At the beginning of each fiscal year, each existing eligible director will receive a grant
of $25,000 worth of options to acquire shares of common stock, with such grant being valued at the exercise price based on the
average of the closing bid prices of the common stock for the last ten trading days prior to the date of grant. These options will
have a term of ten years and will vest as follow: $15,000 will vest immediately upon the date of grant and $10,000 will vest on
the first anniversary of the date of grant contingent upon each eligible director attending not less than 75% of the Board meetings
conducted during the ensuing fiscal year.
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D23-1738

Lower Tribunal No. 2019-CA-005037-0001-XX

_____________________________

THE LYKOS GROUP, INC.,

Appellant, 

v.

JONATHAN FEINS and AMY FEINS,

Appellees.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier County.

Joseph G. Foster, Judge.

March 26, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

TRAVER, C.J., and WHITE and SMITH, JJ., concur.

Allison M. Perry, of Florida Appeals, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

W. Ryan Murphy, of Law Office of Jursinski & Murphy, PLLC, Fort Myers, for 

Appellees.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
#### § 452.96 General.

The Act safeguards democratic processes by prescribing, in section 401, minimum standards for the regular periodic election of officers in labor organizations subject to its provisions. It does not, however, prescribe in detail election procedures which must be followed. Labor organizations are free to establish procedures for elections as long as they are fair to all members and are consistent with lawful provisions of the organization's constitution and bylaws and with section 401. The rights granted to members in section 401(e) refer to individuals, not labor organizations. For example, while locals may be members of an intermediate body, they are not entitled to the rights granted “members” in section 401(e).
(77 South. 982)

#### WILKINSON v. FLOWERS.

(4 Div. 514.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Feb. 5, 1918.)

1. Appeal and Error <&wkey; 1008(1) — Scope oe Review — Findings op Fact.

Where the assignments of error present only questions of fact as to which testimony was taken ore tenus, the trial court’s finding when accorded the weight of a verdict of a jury will not be disturbed, since the trial court was in a better position to judge of the credibility of the witnesses than the appellate court.

2. Courts <&wkey;106 — Opinions—Discussion op Evidence.

Under Code 1907, § 5999, amended by Acts 1915, p. 595, § 3, authorizing the Court of Appeals to write opinions only when in its opinion they will serve the useful purpose, the court need not discuss the evidence, if, in its belief, it would serve no useful purpose.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Houston County ; II. A. Pearce, Judge.

Action by R. C. Flowers against A. Wilkinson for damages to his automobile in a collision with defendant’s automobile. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Farmer & Farmer, of Dothan, for appellant. T. M. Espy, of Dothan, for appellee.

BROWN, P. J.

[1] The assignments of error present for consideration only questions of fact — whether or not the defendant was guilty of negligence proximately resulting in the injury complained of, and, if so, whether plaintiff’s agent or servant was guilty of such contributory negligence as would bar a recovery. On these issues the testimony was taken ore tenus, and that offered by the plaintiff is in sharp conflict with the testimony offered by the defendant. The trial court was in a better position to judge of the credibility of the witnesses than we are, and when his findings are accorded tho weight of a verdict of a jury, we are unable to say that his conclusions are erroneous. Cofield v. McGraw & Garner, ante, p. 369, 77 South. 981; Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403, 72 South. 52; Hatfield v. Riley, 199 Ala. 388, 74 South. 380; Veid v. Roberts, 200 Ala. 576, 76 South. 934.

[2] In our opinion a discussion of the evidence would serve no useful purpose, and by *371the provisions of section 5999 of the Code, as amended by Acts 1915, p. 595, we are relieved of this burden.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.
# STATEOFLOUISIANA



# COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT SRG BATON ROUGE II, L. L. C. NO. 

### 2021 CW 1545 VERSUS PATTEN/ JENKINS BR POPEYE' S, 

### FEBRUARY 14, 2022 L. L. C. In Re: Patten/ Jenkins BR 

### Popeye' s, L. L. C., 

### applying for



### supervisory writs, 

### 19th Judicial District 

### Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 

### 579391. BEFORE: McCLENDON, WELCH, AND THERIOT, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. PMC JEW MRT



### COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 

## NDEPU7Y C E K OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
EXHIBIT 10.10


 


Lease Agreement


 


Lessor: Taiwan life Inc.


 


Lessee:Jishanye
Inc.(Tw)


 


This Agreement is made and entered into by and between
both parties through consultation in accordance with the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China and other relevant laws
and regulations.


 


Article I Name, Location and use of the Premises:


 


The Premises, located in 7F., No.247, Minsheng 1st Rd.,
Xinxing Dist., Kaohsiung City 800, Taiwan, Republic of China, shall be occupied and used for office work.


 


Article II Lease Term:


 


The period commences
on the day of Nov 1, 2014, and thereafter until the day of Nov
1, 2015.


 


After the expiration of this Agreement, the lessee
retains its priority to renew this lease under the same conditions.


 


Article IIIRent and Facilities of the Premises:


 


		1.	The rent shall be calculated by numbers of the Premises and is free.



 


		2.	Office space of 210 square meters.






	 Lessor: Taiwan life Inc.	Lessee: Jishanye (Tw)
	 	 
	 Tel: 07-2223733	Tel: +88672223733
§ 38.51 Governor's oversight and monitoring responsibilities for State Programs. The Governor is responsible for oversight and monitoring of all WIOA Title I-financially assisted State Programs. This responsibility includes: ( a ) Ensuring compliance with the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIOA and this part, and negotiating, where appropriate, with a recipient to secure voluntary compliance when noncompliance is found under § 38.91(b).
( b ) Annually monitoring the compliance of recipients with WIOA section 188 and this part, including a determination as to whether each recipient is conducting its WIOA Title I-financially assisted program or activity in a nondiscriminatory way. At a minimum, each annual monitoring review required by this paragraph must include: ( 1 ) A statistical or other quantifiable analysis of records and data kept by the recipient under § 38.41, including analyses by race/ethnicity, sex, limited English proficiency, preferred language, age, and disability status;
( 2 ) An investigation of any significant differences identified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section in participation in the programs, activities, or employment provided by the recipient, to determine whether these differences appear to be caused by discrimination. This investigation must be conducted through review of the recipient's records and any other appropriate means; and
( 3 ) An assessment to determine whether the recipient has fulfilled its administrative obligations under Section 188 of WIOA or this part (for example, recordkeeping, notice and communication) and any duties assigned to it under the Nondiscrimination Plan.
ASSIGNMENT
                             OF
               CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE

      THIS ASSIGNMENT made and entered into this 17th day of
August  2001,  by and between AEI FUND MANAGEMENT,  INC.,  a
Minnesota corporation, ("Assignor") and AEI Income &  Growth
Fund  23  LLC  a  Minnesota  limited  liability  corporation
("Assignee");

     WITNESSETH, that:

      WHEREAS,  on  the  19th day of  July,  2001,  Assignor
entered   into  a  Contract  For  Sale  and  Purchase   (the
"Agreement") for that certain property located at 3385 124th
Avenue  NW,  Coon  Rapids,  MN  (the  "Property")  with  CNL
Restaurant Investors Properties, Inc., as Seller; and

      WHEREAS, Assignor desires to assign an undivided sixty
percent (60.0%) of its rights, title and interest in, to and
under the Commitment to Assignee as hereinafter provided;

      NOW, THEREFORE, for One Dollar ($1.00) and other  good
and  valuable  consideration, receipt  of  which  is  hereby
acknowledged,  it is hereby agreed between  the  parties  as
follows:

     1.    Assignor  assigns all of its  rights,  title  and
     interest in, to and under the Agreement to Assignee, to
     have  and  to  hold  the same unto  the  Assignee,  its
     successors and assigns;

     2.    Assignee  hereby  assumes all  rights,  promises,
     covenants,   conditions  and  obligations   under   the
     Agreement  to be performed by the Assignor  thereunder,
     and  agrees  to be bound for all of the obligations  of
     Assignor under the Agreement.

All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain
unchanged and continue in full force and effect.

AEI FUND MANAGEMENT, INC.  ("Assignor")

By: /s/ Robert P Johnson
        Robert P. Johnson, its President

AEI INCOME & GROWTH FUND 23 LLC  ("Assignee")
BY: AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.


By: /s/ Robert P Johnson
        Robert P. Johnson, its President
§ 4041.42 Administration of plan during termination process. ( a ) *General rule.* Except to the extent specifically prohibited by this section, during the pendency of termination proceedings the plan administrator must continue to carry out the normal operations of the plan, such as putting participants into pay status, collecting contributions due the plan, and investing plan assets.
( b ) *Prohibitions after issuing notice of intent to terminate.* The plan administrator may not make loans to plan participants beginning on the first day he or she issues a notice of intent to terminate, and from that date until a distribution is permitted pursuant to § 4041.50, the plan administrator may not— ( 1 ) Distribute plan assets pursuant to, or (except as required by this part) take any other actions to implement, the termination of the plan;
( 2 ) Pay benefits attributable to employer contributions, other than death benefits, in any form other than as an annuity; or
( 3 ) Purchase irrevocable commitments to provide benefits from an insurer.
( c ) *Limitation on benefit payments on or after proposed termination date.* Beginning on the proposed termination date, the plan administrator must reduce benefits to the level determined under part 4022, subpart D, of this chapter.
( d ) *Failure to qualify for distress termination.* In any case where the PBGC determines, pursuant to § 4041.44(c) or § 4041.46(c)(1), that the requirements for a distress termination are not satisfied— ( 1 ) The prohibitions in paragraph (b) of this section, other than those in paragraph (b)(1), will cease to apply— ( i ) Upon expiration of the period during which reconsideration may be requested under §§ 4041.44(e) and 4041.46(e) or, if earlier, at the time the plan administrator decides not to request reconsideration; or
( ii ) If reconsideration is requested, upon PBGC issuance of its decision on reconsideration.
( 2 ) Any benefits that were not paid pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section will be due and payable as of the effective date of the PBGC's determination, together with interest from the date (or dates) on which the unpaid amounts were originally due until the date on which they are paid in full at the rate or rates prescribed under § 4022.81(c)(3) of this chapter.
( e ) *Effect of subsequent insufficiency.* If the plan administrator makes a finding of subsequent insufficiency for guaranteed benefits pursuant to § 4041.49(b), or the PBGC notifies the plan administrator that it has made a finding of subsequent insufficiency for guaranteed benefits pursuant to § 4041.40(d), the prohibitions in paragraph (b) of this section will apply in accordance with § 4041.49(e).
[62 FR 60428, Nov. 7, 1997, as amended at 63 FR 29355, May 29, 1998]
# U ni ted Sta tes C our t of Ap pea ls

F or the Seve nth Circuit Chicago, Illin ois 60604
J u l y 1 2 , 2 0 1 2

B y t h e C o u r t :

N o

. 1 1

- 1 1 1 2
J A M E S E

. K I L L I A N

, a s I n d e p e n d e n t A d m i n i s tr a to r o f th e E s ta te o f S u s a n M

. K i l l i a n , P la in t if f- A p p e ll a n t , v
.
C O N C E R

T H E A L T H P L A N

, e t a l

. , D e fe n d a n t s

- A p p e ll e e s

. A p p e a l f r o m th e U n i te d S ta te s D i s tr i c t C o u r t f o r th e N o r th e r n D i s tr i c t o f I l l i n o i s , E a s te r n D i v i s i o n

.
N o

. 0 7 C 4 7 5 5

M a r v i n E

. A s p e n a n d G a r y S

. F e i n e r m a n

, J u d g e s
.

O R D E R

T h e p e ti ti o n f o r r e h e a r i n g e n b a n c i s G R A N T E D

. T h e p a n e l ’s o p i n i o n a n d j u d g m e n t p r e v i o u s l y i s s u e d o n A p r i l 1 9 , 2 0 1 2 , a r e V A C A T E D

.
O r a l a r g u m e n t w i l l b e s e t b y th e c o u r t a t a d a te to b e d e te r m i n e d

.
§ 4902.8 Fees. When an individual requests a copy of his or her record under § 4902.4, charges for the copying shall be made according to the following fee schedule: ( a ) *Standard copying fee.* There shall be a charge of $0.15 per page of record copies furnished. Where the copying fee is less than $1.50, it shall not be assessed.
( b ) *Voluminous material.* If the volume of page copy desired by the requester is such that the reproduction charge at the standard page rate would be in excess of $50, the individual desiring reproduction may request a special rate quotation from the PBGC.
( c ) *Manual copying by requester.* No charge will be made for manual copying by the requester of any document made available for inspection under § 4902.4. The PBGC shall provide facilities for such copying without charge between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. on any working day.
----

Action brought on 28 June 2004 by the Republic of Poland against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-257/04)

(2004/C 251/38)

Language of the case: Polish

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 June 2004 by the Republic of Poland, represented by Jarosław Pietras, acting as Agent.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

With regard to Article 3 of Regulation No 1972/2003 the applicant raises the following heads of complaint:

With regard to Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1972/2003 the applicant argues that the Commission lacked competence and that there has been a breach of the first paragraph of Article 41 of the abovementioned Act of Accession and infringement of the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, in so far as the level of duty laid down in the contested provision exceeds the differential between the Community customs rate and the Polish rate as on 30 April 2004.

With regard to the eighth indent of Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1972/2003 the applicant argues that the Commission lacked competence and that there has been a breach of the first paragraph of Article 41 of the abovementioned Act of Accession and infringement of the principle of proportionality in so far as the contested provision covers products for which the Polish customs rate for imports on 30 April 2004 was greater than or equal to the Community rate and also products in respect of which there was, on 1 May 2004, no evidence of surplus stocks at national level.

With regard to all of the contested provisions of Regulation No 1972/2003, the applicant argues that the Commission abused its powers by adopting measures the real objective of which was not to facilitate Poland in adopting the rules of the Common Agricultural Policy but rather to protect the market of the Community of 15 States against competition from Polish agricultural producers.

----

(1)  OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33.

----
(75 South. 1004)

#### BELL v. HARDY.

(6 Div. 37.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 19, 1917.

Rehearing Denied May 15, 1917.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, (Pickens County; Bernard] Harwood, Judge.

H. A. & D. K. Jones, of Tuscaloosa, for appellant. Patton & Patton, of Livingston, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

On April 19, 1917, the appeal in this ease was dismissed for want of prosecution, and on May 10th, the case was submitted on motion to reinstate. Motion overruled.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 59009]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23415]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Friday, October 4, 2013.

PLACE: 1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance, Enforcement Matters, and 
Examinations. In the event that the times, dates or locations of this 
or any future meetings change, an announcement of the change, along 
with the new time, and place of the meeting will be posted on the 
Commission's Web site at http://www.cftc.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Melissa D. Jurgens, 202-418-5516.

 Natise Stowe,
 Executive Assistant.
[FR Doc. 2013-23415 Filed 9-23-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
IA 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 7 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 1, 2007 

Referred to the Committee on House Administration 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for the reappointment of Roger W. Sant as a 

citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That, in accordance with section 5581 of the Revised Stat4 utes (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents 

5 of the Smithsonian Institution, in the class other than 

6 Members of Congress, occurring because of the expiration 

7 of the term of Roger W. Sant of Washington, D.C., is 

8 filled by the reappointment of Roger W. Sant, for a term 

9 of 6 years, effective October 25, 2007. 

Passed the Senate July 31, 2007. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
(78 South. 416)

#### NORTHERN ALABAMA *RY.*CO. v. JACKSON.

(8 Div. 499.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 2, 1918.)

Railboads <&wkey;443(l) — Injury to A'nimals on Traoks — Evidence.

Evidence *held*insufficient to support recovery against a railroad for killing a mule on the track.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Franklin County ; C. P. Almon, Judge.

Action by O. A. Jackson against the Northern Alabama Railway Company. Judgment

for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Reversed and rendered.

J. H. Bankhead, Jr., of Jasper, for appellant. H. D. Jones, of Russellville, for appellee.

BRICKEN, J.

The action is by the appellee (plaintiff) to recover damages of the appellant (defendant) for killing a mule. The case was tried before the court without a jury, and judgment rendered for plaintiff, from which judgment the defendant appeals. After a careful examination of all the evidence, we are of the opinion that the court committed error in rendering judgment for the plaintiff. The evidence offered by the plaintiff failed to make out a case, and the only reasonable deduction from the evidence as a whole is that the animal in question received its injuries by having fallen through the trestle of the defendant company while-trying to walk across the trestle. The evidence of the defendant affirmatively shows that the animal was not struck by any train of the defendant, and the physical facts showing the position of the mule when found on the trestle with its legs between the ties, and the mule being alive and “bawling,” as expressed by one of the witnesses, precludes the 'possibility of its having been struck by a train. To the contrary, these facts clearly *423substantiate the contention of the defendant that the mule was injured by trying to walk the trestle and by falling through it, in which condition it was found by the train crew and others, and was by them lifted from the trestle and carried off of the track and laid upon the ground. The judgment rendered for plaintiff is reversed, and a judgment is here rendered in favor of the defendant.

Reversed and rendered.
§ 4233.16 Coordination of benefits under original plan and successor plan. ( a ) *Successor plan benefits.* Subject to the limitations contained in section 4022A of ERISA, the only benefit amounts payable under a successor plan are successor plan benefits as defined in § 4233.2.
( b ) *Guarantee of successor plan benefit.* When a participant's or beneficiary's benefit is partially or wholly transferred to a successor plan, the PBGC guarantee applicable to such benefit becomes payable under the successor plan. The benefit remaining in the original plan as of the effective date of the partition, if any, is not subject to a new guarantee, and any increase in the PBGC guarantee amount payable under the original plan will arise solely, if at all, due to an increase in the accrued benefit under a plan amendment following the effective date of the partition, or an additional accrual attributable to service after the effective date of the partition.
( c ) *PBGC financial assistance.* Subject to the conditions contained in section 4261 of ERISA, PBGC will provide financial assistance to the successor plan in an amount sufficient to enable the successor plan to pay only the PBGC-guaranteed amount transferred to the successor plan pursuant to the partition order, and reasonable and necessary administrative expenses if approved by PBGC. The receipt of benefits payable under a successor plan receiving financial assistance from PBGC will be treated as the receipt of guaranteed benefits under section 4022A.
( d ) *Payment of monthly benefits.* The plan sponsors of an original plan and a successor plan may, but are not required to, pay monthly benefits payable under the original plan and successor plan, respectively, in a single monthly payment pursuant to a written cost-sharing or expense allocation agreement between the plans.
Order entered February 25, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-01024-CV

BENNIE GAMBLE, SR., ET AL., Appellants

V.

ANESTHESIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.S.C. AND 

KENNETH M. RICHTER, M.D., Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-01764-E

ORDER

Before the Court is appellants’ February 24, 2021 unopposed motion for an 

extension of time to file their brief on the merits. We GRANT the motion and 

extend the time to March 8, 2021.

/s/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN

JUSTICE