alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 24-H
**POWER OF ATTORNEY**
     Each person whose signature appears below hereby authorizes and appointsDouglas D. Burkett, Ph. D. and Andrew A. Stevens, and each of them severally,as his attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitution and resubstitution,to sign and file on his behalf individually and in each such capacity statedbelow, Zila, Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending July 31,2004, and any amendments thereto, to be filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission, The NASDAQ Stock Market, and otherwise, as fully as such personcould do in person, hereby verifying and confirming all that saidattorneys-in-fact, or their or his substitutes or substitute, may lawfully door cause to be done by virtue hereof.     **Signatures** **Title** **Date** **Douglas D. Burkett, Ph. D.** President and Chief Executive Officerand a Director September 30, 2004**Principal Executive Officer**          **Andrew A. Stevens** Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer September 30, 2004**Principal Financial andAccounting Officer**         **Directors**          **Morris C. Aaron**   September 30, 2004      **Leslie H. Green**   September 30, 2004      **Christopher D. Johnson**   September 30, 2004      **Michael S. Lesser**   September 30, 2004      **John Edward Porter**   September 30, 2004     **/s/ S. Timothy Rose, D.D.S.****S. Timothy Rose, D.D.S.**   September 30, 2004
§ 42.20-13 Vessels without means of propulsion. ( a ) A lighter, barge, or other vessel without independent means of propulsion is assigned a freeboard in accordance with the provisions of this subpart as modified by paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section.
( b ) A barge that meets the requirements of § 42.09-5(b) may be assigned Type “A” freeboard if the barge does not carry deck cargo.
( c ) An unmanned barge is not required to comply with § 42.15-75, § 42.15-80(b), or § 42.20-70.
( d ) An unmanned barge that has only small access openings closed by watertight gasketed covers of steel or equivalent material on the freeboard deck, may be assigned a freeboard 25 percent less than that calculated in accordance with this subpart.
[CGD 79-153, 48 FR 38649, Aug. 25, 1983]
EXHIBIT 10.41

              AMENDMENT #1 TO AGREEMENT DATED AS OF MARCH 17, 2004

      THIS INSTRUMENT constitutes AMENDMENT # 1 to that certain Agreement dated
as of March 17, 2004 (the "Agreement") between STEPHEN G. HAPPAS, a
Massachusetts resident ("Happas"), and SURFNET MEDIA GROUP, INC., A Delaware
corporation ("SurfNet"). SurfNet and the Company are hereinafter referred to
collectively as the "Parties."

      The Parties hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows (each of the
capitalized terms which is used in this letter shall have the same meaning which
is set forth in the Agreement):

      1. Section 2 is stricken in its entirety and, a new Section 2) is inserted
in lieu thereof, as follows:

            "SurfNet will compensate you for performance of the Services at the
            rate of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) per annum through the
            issuance of one hundred and twenty-five thousand shares (125,000)
            shares of common stock of SurfNet (the Shares") reserved for
            issuance under SurfNet's Stock Plan and registered on Form S-8. For
            purposes of calculating the aggregate consideration, the value of
            the Shares will be determined on October 26, 2004, on the basis of
            the last closing sale price on the OTCBB as of that date as quoted
            on Yahoo! Finance (i.e., $.20 per share).

      2. Except as specifically amended herein, the Agreement remains in full
force and effect.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this amendment to the Agreement has been duly executed
by each of the parties hereto as of the day and year above written.


                                                /s/ Stephen G. Happas
                                                --------------------------------
                                                STEPHEN G. HAPPAS


                                                SURFNET MEDIA GROUP, INC.


                                                By: /s/ Robert Arkin
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Robert Arkin, Chairman
Exhibit 10.1


 


Compensation
for Independent Directors

on the

Board of Directors

of

Array BioPharma Inc.


 


Annual Compensation.
Independent directors on the Board of Directors of Array BioPharma Inc. will be
paid annual compensation of $16,000, subject to continued service on the Board
of Directors.


 


Meeting Fees.
Independent directors shall receive the following meeting attendance fees:


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
  Board

  Meetings

  	
   

  	
  Board

  Committee

  Meetings

  	
   

  	
  Audit

  Committee

  Chair

  	
   

  	
  Board and Other

  Committee

  Chairs

  	
   

  
	
  Attend in Person:

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,000

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,000

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,000

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,000

  	
   

  
	
  Attend by Teleconference:

  	
   

  	
  1,000

  	
   

  	
  500

  	
   

  	
  2,000

  	
   

  	
  1,000
Th e State of TexasAppellee



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

February 25, 2014

N o. 04

- 13

- 00287

- CR

Terry C. TRENTACOSTA

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2006 CR6469

Honorable Ray Olivarri, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Catherine, Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On February 14, 2014, appellant filed a motion titled, “Motion to Record and Transcribe

the Formal Su bmission. ” The motion is DENIED.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have her eunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 25th day of February, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. 1350  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SoundView Technology Group, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Gerard P. Maus, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|Dated: November 14, 2003 |  | SOUNDVIEW TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC.
|------------------------ |  | --------------------------------
|                         |  | By:                             

---

QuickLinks
November 14 , 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

TYLER FORD VANTERPOOL , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00757

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appel lee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the motion of the appellant to withdraw notice of appeal. Having considered the motion , the Court orders the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal. We further order the mandate be issued immediately.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
§ 173.075 Subdivision requirements. ( a ) Each oceanographic vessel must comply with the subdivision requirements in §§ 171.070, 171.072, and 171.073 of this subchapter as if it were a passenger vessel carrying 400 or less passengers.
( b ) Each vessel must have a collision bulkhead.
#### The State ex rel. Johnson, Appellant, *v.*Bettman, Judge, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Johnson v. Bettman*(1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 61.]

(No. 98-1379

Submitted September 28, 1998

Decided December 2, 1998.)

*Michael L. Johnson, pro se.*

*Per Curiam.*

Johnson asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his complaint because former R.C. 5145.01 and 5145.02 required Judge Bettman to abrogate or redetermine his sentence following completion of his minimum term. For the following reasons, however, Johnson’s assertions lack merit.

First, neither former R.C. 5145.01 nor 5145.02 imposed any duty on Judge Bettman to redetermine Johnson’s sentence after he had allegedly completed his minimum prison term. See *State ex rel. Lanham v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.*(1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 425, 427, 687 N.E.2d 283, 284-285.

Second, Johnson did not allege his entitlement to the requested extraordinary relief with sufficient particularity to withstand dismissal. *State ex rel. Fain v. Summit Cty. Adult Probation Dept.*(1995), 71 Ohio St.3d 658, 659, 646 N.E.2d 1113, 1114.

Finally, to the extent that Johnson claims that he is entitled to release from prison, habeas corpus, rather than mandamus, is the proper action. *State ex rel. Sampson v. Parrott*(1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 92, 694 N.E.2d 463.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
§ 45.197 Operational plan requirements for the Muskegon route. Towing vessels on the Muskegon route must have on board an operational plan that is available for ready reference by the master. The plan must include the following: ( a ) The cargo limitations, the general operational requirements, and the special operational requirements of this subpart.
( b ) A list of mooring and docking facilities (with phone numbers) in St. Joseph, Holland, Grand Haven, and Muskegon, that can accommodate the tow.
( c ) A list of towing firms (with phone numbers) that have the capability to render assistance to the tow, if required.
( d ) Guidelines for possible emergency situations, such as barge handling under adverse weather conditions, and other emergency procedures.
[USCG-1998-4623, 67 FR 19690, Apr. 23, 2002, as amended at 75 FR 70604, Nov. 18, 2010]
#### § 144.415 Combustibles insulated from heated surfaces.

Internal combustion engine exhaust ducts, galley exhaust ducts and similar ignition sources must be insulated with noncombustible insulation if less than 450 mm (18 inches) away from combustible material. Installations in accordance with ABYC P-1 or NFPA 302 (incorporated by reference, see § 136.112 of this subchapter) will be considered as meeting the requirements of this section.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 28, 2009 

p0520 

Order 

 

May 28, 2009 

138044 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138044 

 COA: 279700 

Saginaw CC: 06-028166-FC 

TONY DESHAWN JOSHUA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 9, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**Exhibit      32**

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

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | 1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15                (d) of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the Company’s financial position and results of                operations. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                           |                                        |                                 |
|------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
|                                           | **Victory              Energy Corporation** |
|                                      |                                   |                            |
| Date: November              6, 2006  | By:                               | /s/ Jon              Fullenkamp |
|                                           |                                             |
|                                           | Principal              Executive Officer    |
|                                           | Principal Financial and                     |
|                                           | Accounting Officer                          |
#### [The State ex rel.] Jones, Appellant, *v.*O’Connor, Judge, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Jones v. O’Connor*(1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 426.]

(No 98-1782

Submitted December 15, 1998

Decided February 10, 1999.)

*Dennis R. Jones, pro se.*

*Per Curiam.*

Jones asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his complaint for a writ of mandamus. For the following reasons, however, we find this assertion to be meritless.

First, to the extent that Jones requested that Judge O’Connor rule on his motion for jail-time credit, his claim was rendered moot when Judge O’Connor subsequently denied the motion. Mandamus does not lie to compel an act that has already been performed. *State ex rel. Wynn v. McCormick*(1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 420, 421, 696 N.E.2d 593.

Second, Jones had an adequate remedy at law by appeal to review any sentencing error by Judge O’Connor in failing to calculate his correct jail-time credit. See, *e.g., State ex rel. Sampson v. Parrott*(1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 92, 93, 694 N.E.2d 463.

*427Finally, the duty under R.C. 2967.191 to actually *grant*pretrial-confinement time credit rests with the Adult Parole Authority rather than Judge O’Connor. *State ex rel. Harrell v. Hamilton Cty. Court of Common Pleas*(1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 193, 12 O.O.3d 189, 389 N.E.2d 506; *State ex rel. Gooden v. Martin*(1990), 67 Ohio App.3d 685, 588 N.E.2d 185.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Alaska Environmental Studies Program

Proposed Study for FY 2013

Formatting Guidance: We recommend study profiles be less than 2 pages. Please do not try 

to make this a detailed scope of work. If the study is selected for further consideration, 

BOEM will prepare a more detailed scope of work. Please provide the following categories 

of information.

Region: Alaska [Standard for all.]

Planning Area(s): [e.g., Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, North Aleutian Basin as applicable. 

See Fig.1 of the Plan.]

Title: [Fill in concise title.]

BOEM Information Need(s) to be Addressed: Provide brief and conclusive reason(s) why 

BOEM needs the information. For example, identify how the study relates to analysis under 

the National Environmental Policy Act and/or specific BOEM decision(s), such as 

formulation of a mitigation measure. Please be as specific as possible.

Period of Performance: FY 2013-20XX

Description:

Background: Please provide 1 to 2 paragraphs on relevant issues. Explain what information 

is required and provide pertinent background. Include details about whether this study ties in 

with other efforts, and if so, how. Include a description of the current status of information. 

That is, what is the level of adequacy of existing information, does any exist, does it need to be 

more geographically specific?

Objectives: Clearly and succinctly state the objective(s) of the study. Explain what 

hypothesis will be tested or what questions will be answered by this study. We encourage the 

use of lists (1, 2, 3, etc.) for multiple, related objectives.

Methods: Provide brief detail on what information, techniques or methods are available that 

could be used. Explain how the objectives of the study will be accomplished. 

Date information is required: Provide dates when products would be most useful, such as 

“Final report is needed by December 2015.” If the product of the study is something 

additional to the scientific report (e.g. database, model, bibliography), explain in this section.
#### William L. Beardsley, *Appellant, v.*Alexander R. Chisolm, *Respondent.*

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2522 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2522

To raise the ceiling on the Federal share of the cost of the Calleguas 
  Municipal Water District Recycling Project, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 20, 2009

 Mr. Gallegly introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To raise the ceiling on the Federal share of the cost of the Calleguas 
  Municipal Water District Recycling Project, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 1631(d) of 
the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (43 
U.S.C. 390h-13(d)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and 
        inserting ``paragraphs (2) and (3)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(3) In the case of the Calleguas Municipal Water District 
Recycling Project authorized by section 1616, the Federal share of the 
cost of the Project may not exceed the sum determined by adding--
            ``(A) the amount that applies to the Project under 
        paragraph (1); and
            ``(B) $40,000,000.''.
                                 <all>
```
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1489

To designate the United States Post Office building located at 508 S.

Burleson, McCamey, Texas, as the ‘‘Claude W. Brown Post Office Building’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 7, 1995

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

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

A BILL

To designate the United States Post Office building located

at 508 S. Burleson, McCamey, Texas, as the ‘‘Claude

W. Brown Post Office Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The United States Post Office building located at 508

5 S. Burleson, McCamey, Texas, shall be known and des6 ignated as the ‘‘Claude W. Brown Post Office Building’’.

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the United

10 States Post Office building referred to in section 1 shall
2

•HR 1489 IH

1 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Claude W. Brown

2 Post Office Building’’.

Æ
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49223, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60144, Sept. 30, 2013.

§ 2.75-10 Procedures for obtaining approvals. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 76695 , Sept. 18, 2024.
( a ) The requirements for obtaining approvals of items covered by specifications and bearing official Coast Guard approval numbers are set forth in parts 159 through 164 of this chapter. For other items, the requirements are described in the regulations governing such items.
( b ) Unless otherwise specified, correspondence concerning approvals should be addressed to the Commandant (CG-ENG), Attn: Office of Design and Engineering Systems, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509. When plans, drawings, test data, etc., are required to be submitted by the manufacturer, the material being transmitted with the application should be clearly identified.
[CGD 76-048, 44 FR 73043, Dec. 17, 1979, as amended by CGD 82-063b, 48 FR 4781, Feb. 3, 1983; CGD 88-070, 53 FR 34533, Sept. 7, 1988; CGD 95-072, 60 FR 50459, Sept. 29, 1995; CGD 96-041, 61 FR 50725, Sept. 27, 1996]
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

#   Board Actions 

## Actions taken during the week ending September 8, 2007

----

Financial Holding CompaniesComplementary Financial Activities  -- determination that disease management and mail-order pharmacy activities are complementary to the financial activity of underwriting and selling health insurance and are therefore permissible for financial holding companies under the Bank Holding Company Act.					-Approved, September 6, 2007 					

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco
Home | Banking information and regulationAccessibility | Contact   usLast update: September 13, 2007
§ 298.16 Substitution of participants. ( a ) You may request our permission to substitute participants to a Mortgage and/or Security Agreement in a financing that is receiving assistance authorized by Title XI of the Act.
( b ) A non-refundable fee of $3,000 is due, payable at the time of the request. The fee defrays all costs of processing and reviewing a joint application by a mortgagor and/or Obligor and a proposed transferee of a Vessel or Shipyard Project, which is security for Title XI debt, if the proposed transferee is to assume the Mortgage and/or the Security Agreement.