alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex_107980.htm


Exhibit 10.2.3


 


GEOVAX, INC.


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO SALARY DEFERRAL AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment No. 1 to Salary Deferral Agreement (the “Agreement”) is entered into as of July 1, 2017 by and between GeoVax, Inc., a Georgia Corporation (the “Company”), and Mark W. Reynolds (the “Employee”).


 


Whereas, the Company and Employee entered into a Salary Deferral Agreement (the “Original Agreement”) dated April 25, 2016; and


 


Whereas, the Company and Employee recognize that it is in the best interests of the Company, its shareholders, and its collective Employees to conserve the Company’s cash resources; and as part of its cash conservation measures, the Company has asked certain of its employees to accept salary reductions and/or deferrals; and


 


Whereas, the Company and Employee acknowledge that the Original Agreement and this amendment have been entered into for the express purpose of conserving the Company’s cash resources and not for executive compensation tax planning purposes, and 


 


Whereas, Employee currently is currently earning an annualized gross salary of $234,392 (“Base Salary”); 


 


Now, therefore, the parties hereby agree as follows:


 


	
			1.

				
			Accumulated Salary Deferral.

			
	 	Employee acknowledges his prior verbal agreement to continue the salary deferral pursuant to the Original Agreement through June 30, 2017. The Company and Employee acknowledge and agree that the accumulated amount of deferred salary owed to Employee as of June 30, 2017 is $109,382.84.



 


	
			2.

				
			Continuation of Salary Deferral.

			
	 	Employee agrees to continue deferral of 40% of his Base Salary, which amount will be accrued and paid to Employee as described below.



 


	
			3.

				
			Discontinuance of Salary Reduction and/or Deferral

			
	 	Employee’s Salary Deferral pursuant to this Agreement shall end upon the occurrence of a significant event (to include financing, corporate partnership, etc., as determined solely by the Company) (the “Discontinuance Date”).



 


	
			4.

				
			Payment of Accumulated Deferred Salary.

			
	 	At the Discontinuance Date, the Company in its sole discretion will determine the form of payment to be made to Employee for the accumulated Deferred Salary. Such payment may be made in cash, in the form of Company Stock, or in a combination of cash and stock.



 


ACCEPTANCE


	 	 	 	 
	
			Employee

				 	 	
			Date

				 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
			Agreed:

				 	 	 	 
	 	
			GeoVax, Inc.

				 	 	 
	 	
			By:
No. 62781.

#### International Expediters, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/1220 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 217 Filed 11/12/04 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 217 Filed 11/12/04 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 217 Filed 11/12/04 Page 3 of 3
From: lynnbatcheller@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:44:28 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Lynn Batcheller

Oceanside, CA 92057
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 481 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         June 19, 2007.
    Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the 
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved 
into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 2641) making appropriations for energy and water 
development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, 
and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. 
All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those 
arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to 
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After 
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
rule. Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with 
clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of the bill for amendment, 
the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on 
the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be 
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose 
in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. 
When the committee rises and reports the bill back to the House with a 
recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered 
as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2.  During consideration in the House of H.R. 2641 pursuant to this 
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair 
may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
by the Speaker.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
breslow110212.htm






  





  











  













 


DEMAND PROMISSORY NOTE


 


 







 


 



Exhibit 10.83









 







 


 


$135,000                                                                           Date:  November 2, 2012


 


 







 


 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned jointly and severally promise to pay to the order of Warren Breslow, the sum of One Hundred Thirty Five Thousand Dollars and no/100 ($135,000.00), together with interest of 10% per annum on the unpaid balance.


 


 


The entire principal and any accrued interest shall be fully and immediately payable UPON DEMAND of any holder thereof.


 


 







 


 


 

 


 


 


”Borrower”


 


Aura Systems, Inc.

















____________________


Melvin Gagerman


Chief Executive Officer







 


Dated: November  2, 2012
FIT F COPY OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS ^A/I

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

11/24/2015 COA No. 12-13-00241-CR

FRELS, JAMES SCOTT Tr. Ct. No. 9953 PD-0601 -15

Pursuant to Rule 69.4(a) T.R.A.P., the record is returned to the court of appeals.

Abel Acosta, Clerk

12TH COURT OF APPEALS CLERK

CATHY LUSK

1517 W. FRONT, ROOM 354

TYLER, TX 75701

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
kss-ex1022_455.htm



Exhibit 10.22

 

 

NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PROGRAM

 

Pursuant to our 2017 Non-Employee Director Compensation Program, directors who are not our employees or employees of our subsidiaries receive an annual retainer fee of $100,000. The independent Lead Director receives an additional retainer fee of $40,000. Chairpersons of the Compensation Committee and the Audit Committee receive an additional $20,000 retainer fee, and the Chairperson of the Governance & Nominating Committee receives an additional $15,000 retainer fee. Non-employee directors also receive retainer fees for membership on the Board of Directors’ standing committees and Executive Committee. Committee member retainers are $5,000 for Governance & Nominating Committee members, $10,000 for Compensation Committee members and $15,000 for Audit Committee and Executive Committee members. Directors receive no additional compensation for participation in Board of Directors’ or committee meetings. Directors are, however, reimbursed for travel and other expenses related to attendance at these meetings as well as travel and other expenses related to attendance at educational seminars approved in advance by the Governance & Nominating Committee.

Equity awards are granted to non-employee Directors from time to time pursuant to our 2017 Long Term Compensation Plan. These grants are typically made following a Director’s initial election to the Board and each time the Director is re-elected by the shareholders to serve a new term. The annual awards, which are comprised of restricted shares, typically have a “grant date fair value” of approximately $110,000, calculated in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. The restricted shares vest on the first anniversary of the date of grant.
NISSAN
MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
  OFFICER'S
CERTIFICATE
  The
undersigned, Steven R. Lambert, President and Chief Executive Officer of NISSAN
MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, a California corporation (the “Company”), does
hereby certify, in his capacity as such corporate officer, as
follows:
  (1)           The
undersigned has caused a review of the activities of the Company, in its
capacity as Servicer, during the period June 19, 2008 through March 31, 2009
(the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance pursuant to that certain Sale
and Servicing Agreement, dated as of June 19, 2008 (the “Agreement”), by and
among the Company, Nissan Auto Receivables Corporation II, as Seller, and Nissan
Auto Receivables 2008-B Owner Trust, as Issuer, to be conducted under his
supervision; and
  (2)           To
the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, the Company has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout the Reporting Period.
  This
Officer’s Certificate is being furnished pursuant to Item 1123 of the Securities
and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for publicly-issued asset-backed
securities.  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have
the meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement.
  IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the 29th day of
June, 2009.
    /s/ Steven R. Lambert
 Steven R.
Lambert
 President and Chief
Executive Officer
Before the Third Division,

March 8, 1956

No. 59755.

#### National Silver Company *v.*United States,

protests 265930-K and 265931-K (Seattle).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protests were dismissed for lack of prosecution.
From: mjt87654@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:50:51 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

You would, in effect be reducing health insurance available to employees, as this will be the only way

employers could avoid violating their conscience.

Worst of all this is clearly not "health insurance."

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Melissa Thompson

Dillon, CO 80435
From: krista.milovich@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:21:50 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Krista Milovich

Laredo, TX 78045
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO PUBLISH ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

GILDA KABBANI, 

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNCIL HOUSE, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-1558L

ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

TO PUBLISH ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on a motion (Dkt. #26) filed by defendant

Council House, Inc. to publish the Court’s Order Denying Preliminary Injunctive Relief

(the “Order”). The Court finds that the Order is suitable for publication, particularly in

light of the fact that it addresses a relatively novel legal issue: the scope of 42 U.S.C.

§ 1437d(l)(2) and its applicability to private entities. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS defendant Council House, Inc.’s motion to 

Case 2:05-cv-01558-RSL Document 29 Filed 01/04/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO PUBLISH ORDER - 2

publish the Court’s Order Denying Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Dkt. #26).

DATED this 4th day of January, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-01558-RSL Document 29 Filed 01/04/06 Page 2 of 2
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic 

and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of 

any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go 

to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 22-BG-627

IN RE JIN-HO CYNN,

DDN2020-D185

A Member of the Bar of the

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 395450

BEFORE: Deahl and AliKhan, Associate Judges, and Washington, Senior Judge.

O R D E R

(FILED—October 27, 2022)

On consideration of the certified order from the Commonwealth of Virginia

suspending respondent from the practice of law for 90 days with terms; this court’s 

August 23, 2022, order suspending respondent pending final disposition of this 

proceeding and directing him to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be 

imposed; and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel; and it appearing that respondent

has not filed a response or his D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit, it is

ORDERED that Jin-Ho Cynn is hereby suspended for 90 days from the 

practice of law in the District of Columbia subject to the terms imposed in Virginia. 

See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483, 487-88 (D.C. 2010) (explaining that there is a 

rebuttable presumption in favor of imposition of identical discipline and exceptions 

to this presumption should be rare); In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) 

(explaining that a rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to 

all cases in which the respondent does not participate). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that, for purposes of reinstatement, respondent’s 

suspension will not begin to run until such time as he files an affidavit that fully 

complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g).

PER CURIAM
From: barbzky@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:12:03 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Barbara Skjalitzky

Lutherville Timonium, MD 21093
NUMBER 13-18-00080-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE EMMA PEREZ TREVINO, CARLOS SANCHEZ, MARCI 

CALTABIANO-PONCE, VALLEY MORNING STAR, THE MCALLEN 

MONITOR, AND AIM MEDIA TEXAS, LLC

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

ORDER 

Before Chief Justice Valdez, Justices Rodriguez and Benavides

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on real part in interest, Mark A. Cantu’s, second

motion for extension of time to file his response to petition for writ of mandamus. Cantu’s

brief was due on March 7, 2018. Cantu filed the present motion requesting an extension 

to file his brief until April 6, 2018. 
2

This Court, having fully examined and considered Cantu’s motion is of the opinion 

that, in the interest of justice, his second motion for extension of time to file his brief should 

be granted in part with order. 

The Court GRANTS Cantu’s second motion for extension of time in part and will 

extend the deadline to file his brief only for twenty days from the date of this order. 

Further motions for extension of time will not be favorably entertained by this Court, 

absent extraordinary circumstances.

 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 

9th day of March, 2018.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, 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

July 25, 2011 

h0718 

Order 

 

July 25, 2011 

142817 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142817 

 COA: 301888 

JEREMY ALLEN COCHREN, Oakland CC: 2009-227714-FC 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 16, 2011 

order 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.