alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
504 P.2d 499

#### Mary WALLEN, Petitioner, v. Joe JACOBSON, Judge of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the County of Pima, Respondent.

No. 2 CA-CIV 1338.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

Dec. 27, 1972.

*559Maricopa County Legal Aid Society, by Ralph J. Blake, Phoenix, for petitioner.

Sullivan, Alley & Seefeldt, P. C., by Gordon T. Alley, Tucson, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner is one of several defendants in a pending Pima County Superior Court action for damages arising out of an automobile accident which occurred in Maricopa County. She seeks review of a venue ruling by way of special action, and since appellate intervention is appropriate, we assume jurisdiction. Brown v. Superior Court, 2 Ariz.App. 434, 409 P.2d 593 (1966) ; Sherrill v. Superior Court, 16 Ariz.App. 425, 493 P.2d 1230 (1972).

The complaint filed below named several individual defendants and one corporate defendant. All were served with process in Maricopa County, the corporate defendant by service of process upon its statutory agent. Petitioner filed a timely motion for change of venue, supported by affidavit, requesting transfer of the action to Maricopa County where she resides. Her motion was denied, apparently for the reason that the corporate defendant had an agent and transacted business in Pima County.

It is well settled that when a proper request for a change of venue has been made, transfer is mandatory. GAC Properties, Inc. of Arizona v. Farley, 14 Ariz. App. 156, 481 P.2d 526 (1971); Massengill v. Superior Court, 3 Ariz.App. 588, 416 P.2d 1009 (1966); Sherrill v. Superior Court, supra.

We agree with petitioner that the principles enunciated by our Supreme Court in Wray v. Superior Court, 82 Ariz. 79, 308 P.2d 701 (1957), control the case *sub judice.*In *Wray,*the court held that A.R.S. § 12-401, subsec. 18, as amended, permitting suit against a corporation in any county in which the cause of action arose or in the county in which it had an agent, owned property or conducted business, did not authorize the joinder of a defendant residing outside the county when he makes timely objection thereto. We hold, therefore, that denial of petitioner’s request was erroneous.

The order denying the motion for change of venue is hereby vacated and the trial court is directed to enter an appropriate order of transfer not inconsistent with this opinion.
#### § 60-30.20 Ex parte communications.

The Administrative Law Judge shall not consult any person, or party, on any fact in issue unless upon notice and opportunity for all parties to participate. No employee or agent of the Federal Government engaged in the investigation and prosecution of this case shall participate or advise in the rendering of the recommended or final decision in the case, except as witness or counsel in the proceeding.
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT TO WARRANT AGREEMENT


 


ONCOBIOLOGICS, INC.


 


AND


 


AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY,
LLC, AS WARRANT AGENT


 


THIS AMENDMENT, dated
February 6, 2017 (“Amendment”), to the Warrant Agreement, dated as of May 18, 2016 (the “Warrant
Agreement”), by and between Oncobiologics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),
and American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLC, a New York limited liability trust company, as Warrant Agent (the “Warrant
Agent”).


 


WHEREAS, the Company
and the Warrant Agent entered into that certain Warrant Agreement relating to, among other things, the issuance of Series A warrants
to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $6.60 per share (the “Series A Warrants”);
and


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to
Section 8.9 of the Warrant Agreement, the Company and the Warrant Agent have agreed to amend the Warrant Agreement to extend the
period for exercising the Warrants from February 18, 2017 to February 18, 2018.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the mutual agreements herein contained, the Company and the Warrant Agent agree as follows:


 


		1.	Amendments.



 


		a.	Section 3.3.1 of the Warrant Agreement is amended and restated as follows:



 


		“3.3.1	Series A Warrants. Each Series A Warrant may be exercised, in whole or in part, at any time during the period commencing
on the Detachment Date and ending at 5:00pm New York City time on February 18, 2018.”



 


		b.	The first sentence of Section 3.3.3 of the Warrant Agreement is amended and restated as follows:



 


“For purposes of this
Agreement, the term “Expiration Date” means February 18, 2018 with respect to the Series A Warrants and May 18, 2018
with respect to the Series B Warrants and the term “Exercise Period” means the period during which the Series A Warrant
or Series B Warrant, as the case may be, is exercisable, as described in subsection 3.1, 3.3.1 or 3.3.2 hereof.”


 


		2.	Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of original or facsimile counterparts
and each of such counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original, and all such counterparts shall together constitute
but one and the same instrument.



 


[Signature page follows]


 




     


     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have
caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the date first above written.


 





	 	COMPANY:
	 	 
	 	Oncobiologics, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 /s/ Pankaj Mohan, Ph.D.
	 	 	Name: Pankaj Mohan, Ph.D.
	 	 	Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
	 	 
	 	WARRANT AGENT:
	 	 
	 	American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLC
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Jennifer Donovan
	 	 	Name: Jennifer Donovan
	 	 	Title: Senior Vice President Relationship Management
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                        12157944
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                139757463
<ALLOWANCES>                                   2080358
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2997137
<PP&E>                                         5530566
<DEPRECIATION>                                  437177
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               277463250
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        230617685
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       1620000
<OTHER-SE>                                    44723199
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 277463250
<SALES>                                       12383846
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              17888642
<CGS>                                          6334931
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 11553711
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               5319503
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  1175
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                7229221
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2472274
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      (59933)
<NET-INCOME>                                   4697014
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      2.9
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      2.9
        

</TABLE>
Return on Investment (ROI) 

Environmental Stewardship

Office of Research and Evaluation December 2023 

Environmental Stewardship Programs 

Provide a Powerful Return on Investment. Environmental stewardship is critical to how AmeriCorps ‘gets things 

done for America.’ AmeriCorps offers transformative resources, 

including funding and AmeriCorps members, to address pressing 

environmental challenges through national service. 

AmeriCorps and its partners focused on environmental stewardship

help communities become more resilient by supporting measures 

that preserve habitats, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, conserve 

land and water, increase renewable energy use, mitigate against 

wildfires and flooding, educate the public on sustainability and 

stewardship, and more. AmeriCorps members engage communities 

and share valuable resources to support environmental stewardship 

across the country.

Return on investment (ROI) analyses help quantify a program’s 

benefits to its costs, assessing program performance and 

demonstrating value to stakeholders, while building the larger 

evidence base. Calculating ROI for AmeriCorps programs can entail

looking at benefits (relative to costs) experienced by: 

• AmeriCorps members, such as increases in their wages and 

educational attainment. 

• Government, such as increases in tax revenue and

programmatic savings. 

• Society, such as improvements in environmental health and 

reductions in wildfire-related costs. 

Environmental stewardship programs partner with land management 

and other eco-sustainable and conservation organizations to better 

steward America’s environmental resources. These programs not only demonstrate positive environmental 

impacts, they generate value from the funding invested in these programs. In terms of ROI1: 

1

Estimates are based on average ecosystem benefits defined by a review of existing empirical research. 

• Washington Conservation Corps generates a return of $0.52 to $8.36 per funder dollar invested.

• Montana Conservation Corps generates a return of $2.11 to $35.84 per funder dollar invested.

• Nevada Conservation Corps generates a return of $2.20 to $27.55 per funder dollar invested.

About the Office of Research and Evaluation

The AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation assists AmeriCorps and its partners in collecting, analyzing, and disseminating 

data and insights about AmeriCorps programs and civic life in America.

About AmeriCorps

AmeriCorps, the federal agency for national service and volunteerism, provides opportunities for Americans to serve their country

domestically, address the nation’s most pressing challenges, improve lives and communities, and strengthen civic engagement. Each 

year, the agency places more than 200,000 AmeriCorps members and AmeriCorps Seniors volunteers in intensive service roles; and 

empowers millions more to serve as long-term, short-term, or one-time volunteers. Learn more at AmeriCorps.gov.

Produced and published at U.S. taxpayer expense
No. 11-9444.

#### Gooch *v.*United States.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
374P15

#### State v. Matthew Ray Hooks

1. Defs PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-212)

1. Dismissed

2. Defs Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Decision of COA

2. Denied
#### § 301-11.304 What if my expenses are less than the authorized amount?

When authorized actual expense and your expenses are less than the locality per diem rate or the authorized amount, reimbursement is limited to the expenses incurred.
# Comments on: 21-1064: CONNOR v. DVA [OPINION], Precedential
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 27, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39603]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16216]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Availability Inventions for Licensing; Government-Owned 
Inventions

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The invention listed below is assigned to the United States 
Government as represented by the Secretary of the Navy and is available 
for licensing by the Department of the Navy.
    U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 09/573,152 entitled, 
``Decontamination Solution and Method'', filing date: May 19, 2000, 
Navy Case No. 82505.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the patent applications cited should 
be directed to the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Laboratory, 
Code CD222, 17320 Dahlgren Road, Building 183, Room 015, Dahlgren, VA 
22448-5100, and must include the Navy Case number. Interested parties 
will be required to sign a Confidentiality, Non-Disclosure and Non-Use 
Agreement before receiving copies of requested patent applications.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James B. Bechtel, Patent Counsel, 
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Laboratory, Code CD222, 17320 
Dahlgren Road, Building 183, Room 015, Dahlgren, VA 22448-5100, 
telephone (540) 653-8016.

    Authority: 35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR Part 404.

    Dated: June 14, 2000.
J.L. Roth,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-16216 Filed 6-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
V

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 814

For the relief of the estate of Irwin Rutman.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 23, 1999

Mr. FOSSELLA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of the estate of Irwin Rutman.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER DESIGNATION.

4 For purposes of part L of title I of the Omnibus

5 Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.

6 3796 et seq.), relating to benefits for survivors of public

7 safety officers, Irwin Rutman of Staten Island, New York,

8 shall be deemed to have been a public safety officer on

9 October 29, 1990, and his family shall be entitled to death

10 benefits under such part.
2

•HR 814 IH

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATION OF ATTORNEYS’ AND AGENTS’ FEES.

2 No amount exceeding 10 percent of a payment made

3 under section 1 may be paid to or received by any attorney

4 or agent for services rendered in connection with the pay5 ment. Any person who violates the provisions of this sec6 tion shall be guilty of an infraction and shall be subject

7 to a fine in the amount provided under title 18, United

8 States Code.

Æ
# Comments on: 20-1327: KCG TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES, INC. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential
Exhibit 10.23b


 


Amendment to Warrant Agreement


 


This Amendment to Warrant
Agreement, dated as of December 5, 2016 (the "Amendment"), hereby amends that certain Warrant dated as of December 4,
2015, and as amended November 29, 2016 (as so amended, the "Warrant Agreement"), by and between Jay S. Walker (“JSW”),
The Upside Commerce Group, LLC (formerly, Flexible Travel Company, LLC), a Delaware limited liability company (the “Issuer”)
and Walker Innovation Inc., a Delaware Corporation (the “Holder”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall
have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Warrant Agreement.


 


WHEREAS, the Warrant
Agreement grants to Holder the right to purchase Class A Common Shares in Issuer pursuant to the terms thereof;


 


WHEREAS, the Issuer
has amended its name to The Upside Commerce Group, LLC, and all references to Flexible Travel Company, LLC in the Warrant Agreement
shall mean and refer to The Upside Commerce Group, LLC;


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to
that certain Warrant Exercise Notice dated December 5, 2016 by Holder to JSW, Holder partially exercised the Warrant Agreement
by purchasing One Million Two Hundred Fifty Thousand (1,250,000) Class A Common Shares of the Issuer pursuant to the terms of the
Warrant Agreement (the “Partial Exercise”);


 


WHEREAS, JSW desires
to enter into the Amendment to account for the Partial Exercise and to reflect that the number of Warrant Shares remaining under
the Warrant Agreement is now Twelve Million Six Hundred Fifty Thousand (12,650,000) Class A Common Shares of the Issuer.


 


NOW THEREFORE, upon
the mutual covenants of the parties contained herein and other good and valuable consideration which is hereby acknowledged the
parties agree as follows:


 


1.          The
opening paragraph of the Warrant Agreement is hereby amended to delete “13,900,000” and substitute in its place “12,650,000.”


 


2.          Except
as expressly amended hereby, the Warrant Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect.


 


This Amendment may be executed by electronic
signature and in counterparts.


 


[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]


 




    	 	1	 



     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has
executed and acknowledged this Amendment as of the date first above written.


 


	 	JSW:
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Jay S. Walker
	 	Jay S. Walker
	 	 	 
	 	THE UPSIDE COMMERCE GROUP, LLC
	 	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ Jay S. Walker
	 	Name: 	Jay S. Walker
	 	Its:	Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 
	 	WALKER INNOVATION INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Jonathan Ellenthal
	 	Name: 	Jonathan Ellenthal
	 	Its:	CEO


 




    	 	2
28 January 2016

364P15

#### Gaillard Bellows and her husband, Jon Bellows v. Asheville City Board of Education dba Asheville High School and SKA Consulting Engineers, Inc., Formerly Sutton-Kennerly & Associates, Inc., and Zebulon W. Wells, Jr., Individually

Pits’ PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-131)

Denied
#### § 60-300.43 Affirmative action policy.

Under the affirmative action obligations imposed by the Act, contractors shall not discriminate against protected veterans, and shall take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified protected veterans at all levels of employment, including the executive level. Such action shall apply to all employment activities set forth in § 60-300.20.
§ 301-71.306 Are there exceptions to collecting an advance at the time the employee files a travel claim? Yes, when the employee is in a continuous travel status and ( a ) You review each outstanding travel advance on a periodic basis (the period will be for a reasonable time of 45 days or less); and
( b ) You determine the amount, if any, of the outstanding balance exceeds the amount of estimated travel expenses for the authorized period and collect the excess amount from the employee.
[FTR Amdt. 70, 63 FR 15974, Apr. 1, 1998. Redesignated by FTR Amdt. 108, 67 FR 57967, Sept. 13, 2002]
ORDER 

PAGE 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0541

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

BEAU AVIDIYA,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause 

appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and 

including April 22nd, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening 

brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 14 2024

03/14/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0541
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Philip M.McDermott, certify that:

1.                 I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-Kfor the fiscal year ended September 30, 2006 of AltiGen Communications, Inc.;

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

3.                 Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

4.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)          Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)         Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)          Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

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

(a)          All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)         Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| Date:  December 29, 2006 |
|-------------------------------|
| By:                           | /s/ PHILIP M. MCDERMOTT |   |
|                          | Philip M. McDermott   Chief Financial Officer |

 

----