alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1







FORM OF AMENDMENT NO.  3


TO THE


INTEGRITY APPLICATIONS, INC.


2010 INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN


 


WHEREAS, Integrity Applications, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), adopted the Integrity Applications, Inc. 2010 Incentive Compensation Plan (the "Plan"), which was approved by the Company's shareholders on July 22, 2010 at the Company's 2010 Annual Meeting of Shareholders;







WHEREAS, capitalized terms used herein and not herein defined shall have the respective meanings ascribed thereto in the Plan;







WHEREAS, on March 17, 2016, the Company entered into an amendment ("Amendment No. 1") to the Plan to, among other things, increase the number of Shares reserved for delivery under the Plan to 1,000,000 Shares; and







WHEREAS, on April 7, 2017, the Company entered into another amendment ("Amendment No. 2") to the Plan to, among other things, increase the number of Shares reserved for delivery under the Plan to 5,625,000 Shares; and







WHEREAS, the Company desires to further amend the Plan to increase the number of Shares reserved for delivery under the Plan to 7,000,000 Shares (as such number of Shares may be adjusted from time to time in accordance with the provisions of the Plan), resulting in 7,000,000 Shares being available for delivery under the Plan, effective February 15, 2018.







NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of February 15, 2018, as follows:







	
1.

	
Section 4(a) of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety, as follows:


 


"Limitation on Overall Number of Shares Available for Delivery Under Plan.  Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 10(c) hereof, the total number of Shares reserved and available for delivery under the Plan shall be 7,000,000. Any Shares delivered under the Plan may consist, in whole or in part, of authorized and unissued shares or treasury shares."





 


	
2.

	
Except as amended herein, all other provisions of the Plan remain unchanged and in full force and effect.





 


[Signature Page Follows]


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused the Plan to be amended as set forth herein as of February 15, 2018.


 


	
 

	
Integrity Applications, Inc.


 


By: /s/ John Graham                                                   


Name: John Graham


Title: Chief Executive Officer
[No. 3482.]

#### Empire Ranch *&*Cattle Co. v. Gibson.

Decided November 11, A. D. 1912.

Rehearing denied December 16, A. D. 1912.

*Ejectment*— Title. A trustee’s deed, complying with the power under which it is executed, is sufficient to maintain the action.

*Appeal from Yuma District Court.*Hon. H. P. Burke, Judge.

Mr. R. H. Gilmore, for appellant.

Mr. John F. Mail, for appellee.

*Per curiam.*

Plaintiff brought his suit in ejectment to recover two parcels of land situate in Yuma county. His title was based upon a trustee’s deed which, under repeated rulings of this court, was sufficient to maintain'his action. The defendant relied upon two original tax deeds — one covering each tract of land — and upon a correction deed for each tract. These tax deeds, and each of them, were void on their face for reasons which have been frequently pointed out in opinions recently handed down by this court.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
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 DISMISSING § 2255 MOTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

STEVEN RAY RIDDALL, )

)

Petitioner, ) CASE NO. C05-1750RSM

) (CR03-425RSM)

v. )

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ORDER DISMISSING MOTION

) UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

The Court, having reviewed petitioner’s § 2255 motion, the Report and Recommendation of

Judge Monica J. Benton, United States Magistrate Judge, and the remaining record, does hereby find

and Order:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation.

(2) Petitioner's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED.

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to petitioner, to counsel for

respondent, and to Judge Benton.

DATED this 17th day of February, 2006.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:05-cv-01750-RSM Document 11 Filed 02/17/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 67104.

protest 61/17364 (Minneapolis).

#### Railway Express Agcy., Inc. *v.*United States,

*254Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation that the merchandise in entry 1489, case No. BCC 1174, and entry 2004, case No. BCC 1311, described as Norwegian luncheon sardines in tomato sauce, consists of sardines, prepared • or preserved in airtight containers, weighing with their contents not over 15 pounds each and not under 8 ounces each, and not packed in oil or in oil and other substances, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: hrmea@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:30:49 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,

Harvey Allen

Idalia, CO 80735
Before the Second Division,

August 30, 1956

No. 60200.

protests 761214-G, etc. (Portland, Oreg.).

#### W. A. Ballinger & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that 20 percent of the merchandise consists of rags used chiefly for papermaking, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained with respect to said 20 percent of the merchandise.
**Company Name** : Due North Aviation, LLC 3380 Old Columbus Rd NW Carroll, OH 43112 **Point of contact** : Nathan Kayes Managing Member Work: 740

- 652

- 1722 Fax: 740

- 204

- 3195 **FAA Certificate** : Part 135: 7DNA936M Part 91: DN1JGL07 **Scope of our operation** : Due North Aviation, LLC is based approximately twenty

- five miles south east of Columbus Ohio. We are a small business that currently has four aircraft that are primarily used for instruction/rental, and power line and pipeline inspection. We have a single base that we operate out of at the Fairf ield County Airport (KLHQ). We hold our part 135 and part 91 certificates so that we can be p repared if the request ever comes in for the service . Since being granted the part 91 certificate in 2010 we have used it approximately three times. Since being granted the part 135 certificate in the middle of 2011, we have had approximately two flights. **Specific section we wish to seek exemption** : 14 CFR Part 12 0.11 7 and 14 CFR Part 120.225 **The extent of relief we seek** : We wish for an exemption that would allow us to maintain one drug

- testing program for our 135 operation and our L.O.A. / part 91 operation. We request this exemption because everyone that is on our 135 program is also on our L.O.A operation. We seek reli ef so that we can save additional costs every year and reduce extra work (pap er - wo rk, transportation time, duplicate training etc)

.**Why this is in the publics’**  **interest** : By having only one drug

- testing program we will reduce undue work, cost and exposu re while driving back and forth from the work site to the drug testing site. We will also be able to increase the efficiency of the business by eliminating excess workload brought on by maintaining two programs to cover the same people. **Reasons for not ad versely affecting safety**  : Once exempt we will still maintain a program that complies with FAA requirements, we will eliminate in essence doubling the standard by having everyone on two programs. There will be no adverse safety impact, as we will continue to meet FAA requirements. **Summary** : In summary Due North Aviation, LLC is requesting exemption from the FARs mentioned above so that we can reduce cost, work and excess redundancies as the current part 135 drug program has the same individuals in it as the part 91 program would.
```

[114th Congress Public Law 147]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 130 STAT. 358]]

Public Law 114-147
114th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To direct the Architect of the Capitol to place in the United States 
     Capitol a chair honoring American Prisoners of War/Missing in 
             Action. <<NOTE: Apr. 29, 2016 -  [H.R. 1670]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: National POW/
MIA Remembrance Act of 2015.>> 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``National POW/MIA Remembrance Act of 
2015''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) In recent years, commemorative chairs honoring American 
        Prisoners of War/Missing in Action have been placed in prominent 
        locations across the United States.
            (2) The United States Capitol is an appropriate location to 
        place a commemorative chair honoring American Prisoners of War/
        Missing in Action.
SEC. 3. PLACEMENT OF A CHAIR IN UNITED STATES CAPITOL HONORING 
                    AMERICAN PRISONERS OF WAR/MISSING IN ACTION.

    (a) <<NOTE: Contracts.>>  Obtaining Chair.--The Architect of the 
Capitol shall enter into an agreement to obtain a chair featuring the 
logo of the National League of POW/MIA Families under such terms and 
conditions as the Architect considers appropriate and consistent with 
applicable law.

    (b) <<NOTE: Deadline.>>  Placement.--Not later than 2 years after 
the date of enactment of this Act, the Architect shall place the chair 
obtained under subsection (a) in a suitable permanent location in the 
United States Capitol.
SEC. 4. FUNDING.

    (a) Donations.--The Architect of the Capitol may--
            (1) enter into an agreement with any organization described 
        in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that 
        is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of that Code to 
        solicit private donations to carry out the purposes of this Act; 
        and
            (2) accept donations of funds, property, and services to 
        carry out the purposes of this Act.

[[Page 130 STAT. 359]]

    (b) Costs.--All costs incurred in carrying out the purposes of this 
Act shall be paid for with private donations received under subsection 
(a).

    Approved April 29, 2016.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1670:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 114-410 (Comm. on House Administration).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 162 (2016):
            Mar. 21, considered and passed House.
            Apr. 14, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### OCT 9 2002 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

WENDEL ROBERT WARDELL, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. No. 01-9004 (Tax Court No. 13738-99)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before HENRY , ANDERSON , and HARTZ , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Petitioner Wendel R. Wardell appeals from two rulin gs by the Tax Court: denial of his Motion for a Continuance and grant of respondent’s Motion to Dismiss. We have jurisdiction over this appeal by virtue of 26 U.S.C. § 7482. We review the Tax Court’s rulings on these motions only for an abuse of discretion. See Colon v. Comm’r , 252 F.3d 662, 662 (2d Cir. 2001) (failure to prosecute); Manzoli v. Comm’r , 904 F.2d 101, 103 (1st Cir. 1990) (continuance). Petitioner also seeks leave to proceed on appeal wi thout prepayment of costs or fees, which is granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (b)(1). After careful consideration of the record on appeal and the arguments in the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the Tax Court didnot abuse its discretion in either of its rulings. The court denied the Motion for a Continuance and granted respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, which was based on petitioner’s alleged failure to prosecute, after petitioner failed to communicat e with the respondent before trial and failed to appear at trial. The Tax Court ’s scheduling notice and standing pre-trial order had previously warned petitioner th at failure to cooperate with respondent or to appear at trial could result in sanctions, including dismissal. The court concluded that, even had petitioner appea red at trial, he would have been unable to establish a case. On appeal, petiti oner has not demonstrated that he was unable to communicate with respondent at all times before the scheduled trial date, and has not addressed the basis of the Tax Court’s rulings. The Tax-3-

Court was well within its discretion to both deny the Motion for a Continuance and dismiss petitioner’s case. The judgment of the United States Tax Court is AFFI RMED.

Entered for the Court

Stephen H. Anderson Circuit Judge
From: ssnfinlay@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:05:54 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,

Susan Finlay

Luray, VA 22835
Case No. 14,810.

#### UNITED STATES v. CLARKE.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 152.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

June Term, 1818.

New Trial—Papers Taken out by Jury.

if the jury take out the coroner's inquest and depositions, and find the defendant guilty of murder. a new trial will be granted.

[See Case No. 14,811.]

Indictment Lagainst Michael Clarke] ror murder of defendant’s wife.

The jury, when they retired, took out with theffi the coroner’s inquest and depositions, without leave or consent of the prisoner’s counsel, and having returned with a verdict, guilty.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Craneh. Chief Judge.)

THE COURT

granted a new trial.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Synthetic Nucleic Acid Platforms for HIV-1 (SNAPH): (R61/R33 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).                    

*Date:*                         November 21, 2023.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G11, Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Barry J. Margulies, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities,  National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G11, Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 761-7956,                         *barry.margulies@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 25, 2023.

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-21359 Filed 9-28-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
company's unaudited financial statements dated as of March 31, 1998 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                              93
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,295
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,732
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,569
<PP&E>                                           7,687
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,927
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,175
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,381
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        328
<COMMON>                                           123
<OTHER-SE>                                     (6,653)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,175
<SALES>                                         12,962
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,962
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,193
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,161
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 220
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    388
<INCOME-TAX>                                        38
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                350
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       350
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

</TABLE>