alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 03-804 

________________________________________________________________________ 

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT 

Article 98 

 Agreement between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and MADAGASCAR 

Signed at Antananarivo April 23, 2003 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
MADAGASCAR 

International Criminal Court: Article 98 

Agreement signed at Antananarivo April 23, 2003; 

 Entered into force August 4, 2003.
#### § 617.8 Pre-award reviews.

NSF reserves the right to conduct pre-award reviews of applicants for Federal financial assistance from NSF in cases where the NSF has substantial reason to believe that a potential recipient who is not then a recipient of other NSF financial assistance under the same program or activity may engage in practices under that program or activity that would violate the Act. However, the results of any such review shall not constitute a basis for NSF refusal to grant financial assistance to the applicant under that program or activity unless the procedural requirements of the Act (42 U.S.C. 6104) and §§ 617.12 and 617.13 of this part have been followed.

[49 FR 49628, Dec. 21, 1984, as amended at 68 FR 51383, Aug. 26, 2003]
COURT OF APPEALS.

#### Eli Benedict, respondent, agt. William H. De Groot *et al.*appellants.

*June term,*1867.

Where the plaintiff is shown to be a *tona fide*holder of the promissory note sued on, and entitled to recover, it is not error for the judge to refuse to submit the case to the jury, although the note was impeached.

Gboveb, J.

The refusal of the judge to submit the case to the jury was not error. The note was entirely impeached. Although it was proved that William De Groot made the note in the name of his firm, for a purpose- not authorized by the partnership, yet it appeared to have been discounted by the Exchange Bank without any notice of such fact before maturity. The plaintiff, at maturity, purchased the note of the bank. He was not a party to the note, and had no interest in it prior to such purchase. Under these facts he acquired, by his purchase, all the rights of the bank. The bank was a *Iona fide*holder, and the plaintiff, by his purchase from it, acquired its rights as such, and was, therefore, entitled to a verdict for the amount of the note. Such a verdict was -rendered by direction of the court. This was correct. This disposes of all the questions raised upon the trial as to the competency of evidence. Hone of these questions had any relation to the right of the plaintiff to recover.

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed.
Document Headings

                    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 Housing and Urban Development

          - [Docket No. FR-5125-N-11]

# AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

# ACTION:

 Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

March 16, 2007.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 7262, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-7588.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in                     *National Coalition for the Homeless*                     v.                     *Veterans Administration*,                           ( print page 12628)                        No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.),  HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.                

Dated: March 8, 2007.

Mark R. Johnston,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs.

[FR Doc. 07-1173 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210-67-M
EXHIBIT 99.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Nickolas R. Smock, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Pharmacy Buying
Association, Inc;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

      a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
      material information relating to the registrant, including its
      consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is
      being prepared;

      b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
      quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

      c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
      evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

      a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
      controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
      registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

      b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
      controls; and

<PAGE>

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  May 14, 2003


/s/ Nick Smock
---------------------------
Nickolas R. Smock
Chief Executive Officer
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT MICHIGAN

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, )

)

Plaintiff, ) Civil Case No. 

)

v. )

)

JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address )

68.40.40.150, )

)

Defendant. )

)

NOTICE OF FILING RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, pursuant to Rule 7.1, Plaintiff does not have a parent 

corporation nor a publically held corporation that owns more than 10% of its stock. 

Respectfully submitted,

NICOLETTI LAW, PLC

By: /s/ Paul J. Nicoletti

Paul J. Nicoletti, Esq. (P-44419)

33717 Woodward Ave, #433

Birmingham, MI 48009

Tel: (248) 203-7800

E-Fax: (248) 928-7051

Email: pauljnicoletti@gmail.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

2:14-cv-12430-NGE-MKM Doc # 4 Filed 06/21/14 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 35
Editorial Note on Part 99
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 99 appear at 63 FR 39998, July 24, 1998.

§ 99.5 Filing and service of papers. ( a ) An original and two copies of all papers in the proceedings shall be filed with the presiding officer. For exhibits and transcripts of testimony, only the originals need be filed.
( b ) All papers in the proceedings shall be served on all parties by personal delivery or by certified mail. Service on the party's designated attorney will be deemed service on the party.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 CERTIFICATION
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this quarterly report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as
of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
 Date:
June 6, 2006/s/ G. Lynn BoggsG. Lynn BoggsChief Executive Officer
§ 108.195 Location of accommodation spaces. ( a ) On surface type units, accommodation spaces must not be located forward of a vertical plane located at 5 percent of the unit's length aft of the stem, at the designed summer load line.
( b ) On all units, the deckhead of each accommodation space must be above the deepest load line.
#### Sanderson, appellant, v. Bowen.

*Trial—action for libel—jury talking papers—Verdict—effect of jury improperly taking papers.*

In an action for libel,. *held*that the rule in this State is that whether any, and what papers given in evidence may be taken by the jury when they retire to deliberate upon their verdict, is a matter within the discretion of the trial court.

Where a jury improperly take papers to their room when consulting on a verdict, the verdict will be allowed to stand, unless it appears that it may have been produced or influenced by means of such papers.

Appeal from an order of the special term setting aside a verdict and ordering a new trial. The action was brought in Kings county, by Elnathan L. Sanderson against Henry 0. Bowen and others, to recover damages for an alleged libel published in the Brooklyn Daily Union, a newspaper issued by defendants. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for 13,300.

*E. Ly Sanderson,*appellant in person.

*George G. Holt,*for respondents.

Taloott, J.

The opinion is chiefly devoted to the consideration of the. facts. The head-note states the only points passed upon. The following *676portions of the opinion are believed to' be all that it is important to publish at length:

> “ The verdict in this action was set aside for irregularity, upon the ground that the successful party placed in the hands of the jury, upon their retiring to consider upon their verdict, a certain printed paper without the consent of the court or the opposite counsel. The action was for a libel, and the paper placed in the hands of the jury was a printed copy of the libelous articles counted upon, and which had been given in evidence. The modern rule, as •settled in this State, is that whether any, and what papers, which have been given in evidence, may be taken by the jury when they retire to deliberate upon their verdict, is a matter within the discretion of the judge before whom the action is tried. *Porter*v. *Mount,*45 Barb. 422; *Shappner*v. *Second Am. R. R. Co.,*55 id. 497; *Howland*v. *Willetts,*9 N. Y. 170.

> “It does not, however, follow as a matter of course, that a verdict is to be set aside solely because the jury had improperly taken to their room, when considering their verdict, papers without the consent of the court. On the contrary, although such taking on the part of the jurors is punishable, the verdict will nevertheless be allowed to stand, unless it appears that the verdict itself may have been produced or influenced or effected by means of the papers thus improperly examined and considered by the jury. We think it is quite probable that the verdict in this case was materially influenced by the paper thus improperly taken by the jury, and for aught that appears, read and considered by them while deliberating on their verdict.”

*Order affirmed.*
§ 113.35-5 Electric engine order telegraph systems. ( a ) Each electric engine order telegraph system must have transmitters and indicators that are electrically connected to each other.
( b ) Each engineroom indicator must be capable of acknowledgment of orders.
( c ) There must be an audible signal at each instrument. The signal at both locations must sound continuously when the transmitter and the indicator do not show the same order.
( d ) Each telegraph instrument must meet the protection requirements of § 111.01-9 of this chapter.
( e ) Each system must have an alarm which— ( 1 ) Automatically sounds and visually signals a loss of power to the system;
( 2 ) Is on the navigating bridge; and
( 3 ) Has a means to reduce the audible signal from 100 percent to not less than 50 percent.
[CGD 74-125A, 47 FR 15272, Apr. 8, 1982, as amended by CGD 94-108, 61 FR 28290, June 4, 1996]
#### Emerentiana Frith et al., Respondents, *v.*People's Trust Company, Defendant, and Anna Frith, as Administratrix of the Estate of Francis E. Frith, Deceased, Appellant.

Reported below, 133 App. Div, 920.

(Submitted January 3, 1910;

decided January 11, 1910.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial *558department, entered July 2, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a verdict in an action to recover upon a promissory note.

The motion was made upon the ground that the record on appeal failed to show questions of law requiring review by the Court of Appeals.

*Edmund F. Driggs*for motion.

*James P. Collins*opposed.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
§ 111.01-3 Placement of equipment. ( a ) Electric equipment must be arranged, as far as practicable, to prevent mechanical damage to the equipment from the accumulation of dust, oil vapors, steam, or dripping liquids.
( b ) Apparatus that may arc must be ventilated or be in ventilated compartments in which flammable gases, acid fumes, and oil vapors cannot accumulate. Skylights and ventilators must be arranged to prevent flooding of the apparatus.
§ 400.1 Basis and purpose of the program. ( a ) This part prescribes requirements concerning grants to States and other public and private non-profit agencies, wherever applicable under title IV of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
( b ) It is the purpose of this program to provide for the effective resettlement of refugees and to assist them to achieve economic self-sufficiency as quickly as possible.
( c ) Under the authority in section 412(a)(6)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Director has established the provision of employment services and English language training as a priority in accomplishing the purpose of this program.
[51 FR 3912, Jan. 30, 1986, as amended at 60 FR 33601, June 28, 1995]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Dallas Buyers Club, LLC, )

)

) Case No.: 2:14-cv-12600-LVP-DRG

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

) 

DOES 1-21, )

 ) 

Defendants. )

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff hereby files this Notice of Voluntary 

Dismissal without prejudice as to the following Defendant identified in Plaintiff’s Complaint as 

Doe # 7, said Defendant is also identified in Plaintiff’s Complaint as the holder of the IP address

68.62.79.56.

DATED: September 29, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

Dallas Buyers Club, LLC

By: s/Paul J. Nicoletti

Paul Nicoletti (P-44419)

NICOLETTI LAW, PLC

33717 Woodward Avenue, Ste. #433

Birmingham, MI 48009

Landline: (248) 203-7800

eFax: (248) 928-7051

Email: pauljnicoletti@gmail.com

http://www.nicolettilawplc.com 

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF 

DALLAS BUYERS CLUB, LLC

4:14-cv-12600-LVP-DRG Doc # 10 Filed 09/29/14 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 91
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00266-CR

Angela CALAMACO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From County Court at Law No. 7, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 224415

Honorable Monica Guerrero, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 9, 2010

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Appellant appeals from the trial court’s order modifying the conditions of her probation.

This court does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an order altering or modifying

probation conditions. See Basaldua v. State, 558 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); see also

Quaglia v. State, 906 S.W.2d 112, 113 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995, no pet.). Accordingly, this

court ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of
04-10-00266-CR

-2-

jurisdiction. On May 28, 2010, appellant’s counsel filed a response agreeing this court lacked

jurisdiction over her appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
asmb-ex101_25.htm



 

Exhibit 10.1

AMENDMENT NO. 3

TO

ASSEMBLY BIOSCIENCES, INC.

2018 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

Assembly Biosciences, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) adopted the 2018 Stock Incentive Plan on May 30, 2018, which was amended by Amendment No. 1 to Assembly Biosciences, Inc. 2018 Stock Incentive Plan effective as of May 17, 2019 and by Omnibus Amendment to Assembly Biosciences, Inc. Stock Plans effective as of March 11, 2020 (as amended from time to time, the “Plan”). 

Prior to this Amendment No. 3 to the Plan, the number of shares of Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share, reserved under the Plan was 3,000,000.

The Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) may, with stockholder approval, amend the Plan to increase the number of authorized shares reserved for issuance under the Plan.

The Board has determined that it is advantageous to the Company and necessary to attract and retain the best available personnel to amend the Plan to increase the number of shares reserved for issuance under the Plan.

Now, therefore, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

1.   Sections 3(a) of the Plan shall be amended as follows:

“(a)Subject to the provisions of Sections 3(b) and 12 below, the maximum aggregate number of Shares which may be issued pursuant to all Awards (including Incentive Stock Options) is Four Million Six Hundred Thousand (4,600,000) Shares. The Shares granted under the Plan may be authorized, but unissued, or reacquired Common Stock.

Except as expressly set forth in this Amendment No. 3, all other terms and conditions set forth in the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. Each capitalized term used and not defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Plan.

Subject to approval of the stockholders, this Amendment No. 3 has been adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company as of March 11, 2020.

This Amendment No. 3 will be submitted to the stockholders of the Company for approval at the annual stockholders meeting to be held on June 11, 2020 and will become effective upon receipt of approval by the stockholders.

March 11, 2020: Subject to Stockholders approval, adopted by Board of Directors

June 11, 2020: Approved by Stockholders
#### Maynard N. Clement, as State Commissioner of Excise, Respondent, *v.*Bernard W. Curtis, Defendant, and American Fidelity Company, Appellant.

*Clement*v. *Curtis,*129 App. Div. 934, affirmed.

(Argued December 7, 1909;

decided January 4, 1910.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered January 21, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for anew trial in an action to recover upon a liquor tax bond.

*Charles Newton*for appellant.

*Daniel A. Reed*and *Russel Headley*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gbay, Haight, Vann, Webneb, Willabd Baktlett and Hisoook, JJ.
§ 270.6 What data and other information must a State report to us? ( a ) *Data for work measures.* ( 1 ) If a State wishes to compete on any of the work measures specified in § 270.5(a), it must collect quarterly and report semi-annually for the performance year and, if the State chooses to compete on an improvement measure, the comparison year, the identifying information on all adult TANF recipients as specified in program guidance.
( 2 ) Each State must submit the information in this paragraph for both adult TANF recipients and adult SSP-MOE recipients for whom the State would report the data described in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) *Data on SSP-MOE programs.* In order to compete on any high performance bonus measure, each State must submit the information in Sections One and Three of the SSP-MOE Data Report as specified in § 265.3(d) of this chapter.
( c ) *Data for the Medicaid/SCHIP measures.* If a State wishes to compete on the Medicaid/SCHIP measures in § 270.4(d), it must submit the information that we and CMS will specify.
( d ) *Data for the child care measure.* If a State wishes to compete on the child care measure in § 270.4(e), it must report the data as required by the CCDF program and additional data on child care market rates that we will specify.
( e ) *Intent to compete.* Each State must notify us on which of the measures it will compete in each bonus year.