alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39900-39901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16324]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[DA 00-1401]


New Filing Window for MDS and ITFS Applications for Two-Way 
Operations

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This document postpones the July 3 through July 10, 2000 
filing window for MDS and ITFS applications for two-way operations. The 
new filing

[[Page 39901]]

window will begin August 14, 2000 and end August 18, 2000.

DATES: The new window filing opportunity begins August 14, 2000 and 
ends August 18, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Roberts, Video Services 
Division, Mass Media Bureau at (202) 418-1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of a Order released June 
23, 2000. It does not include attachments. The complete text of the 
Order is available for public inspection and copying during normal 
business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th 
Street, SW, Washington, DC. It may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, 
Inc. (ITS, Inc.) 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20035, (202) 857-
3800. It is also available on the Commission's web site at http://www.fcc.gov.
    The Mass Media Bureau announces a postponement of the July 3 
through July 10, 2000 filing window for MDS and ITFS applications for 
two-way operations. The new filing window will begin August 14, 2000 
and end August 18, 2000. However, in order to permit commercial 
operators to fulfill their business plans which were created in 
reliance upon the timelines set forth in previous Commission Orders and 
Public Notice, the Commission will permit MDS operators, starting July 
3, 2000, to file applications for two-way authority for Channels 1, 2 
and 2a upstream. Such commercial applicants should have consents for 
downstream transmissions from all affected parties. In addition, we 
will permit ITFS operators the opportunity to file for developmental 
authority to begin two-way service.

Federal Communications Commission.
Barbara A. Kreisman,
Chief, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 00-16324 Filed 6-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Exhibit
10.3


 


AMENDMENT
TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT


 


This
Amendment to the consultant agreement (this “Amendment”), dated as of February 9, 2017, is entered into
by Del Mar Pharmaceuticals (BC) Ltd. (the “Company”), a wholly owned subsidiary of DelMar Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and
Dennis Brown (the “Consultant”).


 


WITNESSETH:


 


WHEREAS,
on January 1, 2015 the Company and the Consultant entered into a consulting agreement (the “Agreement”);


 


WHEREAS,
the Company and the Consultant desire to amend the Agreement as more particularly set forth below;


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and mutual promises contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and legal sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties agree as
follows:


 


1.           The
Term (section 5.1) is hereby amended to mean December 31, 2017.




 


2.           The
Effective Date of this Amendment shall be January 1, 2017.




 


3.           Section
2.4 of the Agreement shall be amended as follows:





 


In
recognition of the Consultant’s services to the Company during the term of this Agreement, the Company shall pay the Consultant
$200,000 (the “Fee”) payable in equal installments of $16,666.67 on the first day of each month during the Term.


 


At
the sole discretion of the Company’s Board of Directors, the Consultant may be considered for a bonus or may participate
in the Company’s long term incentive plans. All payments, issuance, or grants under either the bonus or long term incentive
compensation plan are at the sole discretion of the Company’s Board of Directors.


 


4.           Except
as modified herein, the terms of the Agreement have and shall remain in full force and effect.


 


5.           This
Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original and
shall be binding upon all parties, their successors and assigns, and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the
same Amendment. A signature delivered by facsimile shall constitute an original.


 


[Signature
Page Follows]


 




    	 		 



     

    


 


[SIGNATURE
PAGE TO THE AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT]


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date set forth above.


 


	DEL
    MAR PHARMACEUTICALS (BC) LTD.	 
	 	 	 
	By:
    	 /s/ Jeffrey
    A. Bacha	 
	Name:
    	Jeffrey
    A. Bacha	 
	Title:
    	CEO,
    Director	 
	 	 	 
	CONSULTANT:  	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/
    Dennis
    Brown       	 
	Name:	Dennis
    Brown
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 128 (Monday, July 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 41124]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16706]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board


Notice of Public Information Collection Submitted to OMB for 
Review

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, DOT.

ACTION: Extension of a currently approved collection.

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

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board has submitted to the Office 
of Management and Budget for review and approval the following proposal 
for collection of information as required by the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Title: Financial Assistance of Railroad Lines.
    OMB Form Number: 2140-0003.
    No. of Respondents: 11.
    Total Burden Hours: 350.

DATES: Persons wishing to comment on this information collection should 
submit comments by July 31, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to Case Control, Surface Transportation 
Board, Room 705, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423. When 
submitting comments refer to the OMB number and title of the 
information collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles L. Renninger, 202 565-1631. 
Requests for copies of the information collection may be obtained by 
contacting Ellen R. Keys (202) 565-1654.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Surface Transportation Board is, by 
statute, responsible for the economic regulation of surface 
transportation carriers operating in interstate and foreign commerce. 
The ICC Termination Act of 1995, Public Law 104-88, 109 Stat. 803 
(1995), which took effect on January 1, 1996 abolished the Interstate 
Commerce Commission and transferred the responsibility for regulating 
rail transportation, including the proposed abandonment and 
discontinuance of rail lines, to the Surface Transportation Board. The 
Board needs, in each abandonment exemption proceeding, a detailed map 
of the rail line, depicting its relation to other rail lines, roads, 
water routes, and population centers. The Board will use the 
information concerning the value of the property involved to set the 
fair market value of the property and conditions of sale or the terms 
of the subsidy. Interested parties have a statutory right to file 
offers of financial assistance. The Board has the Congressionally 
mandated responsibility to handle offers of financial assistance. The 
consequences of failure to collect data related to offers of financial 
assistance will be an inability to fullfill responsibilities under 49 
U.S.C. 10904.

    Dated: June 22, 2000.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-16706 Filed 6-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 Pursuant to Section 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on May 3, 2000, and May 10, 2000, ISP Freetown Fine Chemicals, Inc., 2328 South Main Street, Assonet, Massachusetts 02702, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes  of controlled substances listed below: Drug
ScheduleAmphetamine (1100)
IIPhenylacetone (8501)
II
 The firm plans to bulk manufacture amphetamine for a customer and to bulk manufacture the phenylacetone for the manufacture of the amphetamine. Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substance may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration. Any such comments or objections may be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative (CCR), and must be filed no later than September 1, 2000. Dated: June 21, 2000. John H. King, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. 00-16676  Filed 6-30-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
090A16

#### Victor Howard v. Patricia E. Chambers; Mattocks Enterprises, Inc.; Steve N. Mattocks, Individually; Jason L. Panciera, Individually; and Cawthome, Moss & Panciera, P.C.

Plt’s *Pro Se*Notice of Appeal Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA15-590)

Dismissed *ex mero motu*
# Comments on: 21-1977: JOHNSON v. MCDONOUGH [OPINION], Nonprecedential
Docket Number: FAA-2012-1226
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

RAYMOND E. FOWLER,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v. No. 98-6700

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge.

(CA-97-356-3)

Submitted: September 30, 1998

Decided: October 20, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Raymond E. Fowler, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Raymond E. Fowler appeals from a district court order that concluded his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998) was barred by the one-year limitations period of 28

U.S.C.A. § 2244(d)(1) (West Supp. 1998). Fowler's conviction

became final in 1990, and he executed his petition on April 1, 1997;

it was received in the district court on April 18, 1997. Fowler had

until April 23, 1997 to file his § 2254 petition. See Brown v.

Angelone, 150 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 1998). Therefore, his petition was

not time barred. For these reasons, we grant a certificate of appealability on this issue, vacate the district court's order, and remand for

further proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

REMANDED

 2
108P16

#### State v. Jonathan Udell Teeter

Def’s *Pro Se*PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-570)

Denied
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"21-2215: EIS GMBH v. NOVOLUTO GMBH [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"jmngSjE5W3\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-13-2023-21-2215-eis-gmbh-v-novoluto-gmbh-rule-36-judgment-21-2215-rule_36_judgment-3-13-2023_2093622\/\">21-2215: EIS GMBH v. NOVOLUTO GMBH [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-13-2023-21-2215-eis-gmbh-v-novoluto-gmbh-rule-36-judgment-21-2215-rule_36_judgment-3-13-2023_2093622\/embed\/#?secret=jmngSjE5W3\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“21-2215: EIS GMBH v. NOVOLUTO GMBH [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"jmngSjE5W3\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"RULE 36 JUDGMENT Posted: EIS GMBH v. NOVOLUTO GMBH [RULE 36 JUDGMENT](pdf) Appeal Number: 21-2215 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
No. 10-11087.

#### Camarillo *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 303-70.100 Must we provide assistance for preparation and transportation of employee remains?

Yes, in accordance with §§ 303-70.101 and 303-70.102.
§ 302-11.306 How can I know if my expenses are reasonable and will be reimbursed by the Government? You are responsible for the determination of reasonableness for your claimed expenses. To determine if your expenses are reasonable, you should, in coordination with your agency, contact the local real estate association, or, if not available, at least three different realtors in the locality in which your expenses will be incurred and request: ( a ) The current schedule of closing costs which applies to the area in which you are buying or selling;
( b ) Information concerning local custom and practices with respect to charging of closing costs which relate to either your sale or purchase and whether such costs are customarily paid by the seller or purchaser; and
( c ) Information on the local terminology used to describe the costs specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
#### § 302-12.104 What is the purpose of contracting for relocation services?

The purpose of contracting for relocation services is to improve the treatment of employees who are directed to relocate to facilitate the retention of a well-qualified workforce.