alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.23



DUSKA THERAPEUTICS, INC.

AMENDMENT TO NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT

THIS AMENDMENT (the Amendment") TO THE NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT (the "Original Agreement") dated as of the 26th day of September, 2007 by and between  Duska Therapeutics, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), and James S. Kuo ("Optionee") is effective as of the 10th day of November, 2008.

RECITAL

1. Pursuant to the 2004 Equity Incentive Plan (the "Plan") of the Company, the Optionee was issued a non- qualified stock option (the "Option") to purchase 2,249,102 shares of Common Stock of the Company at a price of $.75 per share upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement.

2. The Option has vested with respect to 1,124,552 underlying shares of common stock.

3. In order to reduce the number of the Company's issued and outstanding options, the Optionee has agreed to terminate the Option with respect to the unvested shares of common stock.

AGREEMENT

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and of the undertakings of the parties hereto contained herein, it is hereby agreed:

1. The portion of the Option with respect to the 1,124,551 underlying shares of common stock which has  not vested is terminated and Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to decrease the number of shares upon which the Option is exercisable from 2, 249,102 to 1,124,552 .

2. All of the other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain the same.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date and year first above written.

| |                          |                          
| | ------------------------ | -------------------------
| | DUSKA THERAPEUTICS, INC.
| |                          |                          
| | By:                      | /s/ Amir Pelleg, Ph.D.   
| |                          | Name: Amir Pelleg, Ph. D.
| |                          | Title: President         
| |                          |                          
| | OPTIONEE                
| |                          |                          
| | By:                      | /s/ James Kuo            
| |                          | Dr. James Kuo            
| |                          | 1050 Scorlati Place      
| |                          | La Jolla, CA 92037
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 32.2
                                  ------------


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

          In connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Integrated
Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2006,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1.       the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act
                  of 1934; and

         2.       the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and result of
                  operations of the Company at the dates and for the period
                  indicated.

         This Certificate has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Dated: August 18, 2006                        By: /s/ Steven R. Blake
                                                  -----------------------
                                                  Steven R. Blake
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
# Map            Serbia and Montenegro, summary map
EXHIBIT 32  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002    The undersigned, Robert Rosner, the Chief Executive Officer of Wataire International, Inc. (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1.     The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2007 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements 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 financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement this 15th day of January 2008.   By:  /s/ Robert Rosner -------------------------------- Robert Rosner, Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 99.1
                                                                    ------------




                                  CERTIFICATION


     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, the undersigned officer of GMX Resources
Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that the Company's Report on Form 10-KSB
for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Dated:   April 14, 2003                       /s/ Ken L. Kenworthy, Jr.
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Name:  Ken L. Kenworthy, Jr.
                                              Title:   Chief Executive Officer



     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350.
September 19, 2013

Mr. Hal W. Raber

Director of Operations

Executive Jet Management, Inc.

4556 Airport Road

Cincinnati, OH 45226

Dear Mr. Hal Raber :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

§ 91.1605 of Title 14, C ode of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your September 9, 2013 exemption request on behalf of Executive Jet

Management , Inc. into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 13

- 0805 ), but we are unable to process

your request any further. The information you sent does no t comply with the requirements of

§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of

the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it woul d

benefit the public as a whole.

• The reasons why the exemption would no t adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

• Any additional information , views, or arguments available to support your request.

• The specific reasons why you need to exercise the privileges of your exemption outside

the United States.2

In add ition, it was assesses the petition for exemption does a ddress an equivalent level of

safety, which necessarily incorporates the B050 8900.1 guidance on hostile areas (i.e. flight

following, real

- time information, operational control, security plan, and a training program for

p art 119 officials and pilots

.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we

receive this required information from you. Please note that § 11.63(d) require s you to send

your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the

exemption.

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Courtney

Manager, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3

Project No.: AFS

- 13

- 538

- E

Project Officer: _______________

ARM

- 10 1 : KJone s: 9/18/2013 :Doc# 36977

ARM

- 1/100/104:Program Offic e AFS

- 200

M R HAL W RABER

DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS

EXECUTIVE JET MANAGEMENT INC

4556 AIRPORT ROAD

CINCINNATI OH 45226
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

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

     The undersigned, Amy E. Essex, is the Chief Financial Officer of First
Federal of Northern Michigan Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company").

     This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the
Company of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
December 31, 2005 (the "Report").

     By execution of this statement, I certify that to the best of my knowledge:

          A)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
               or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)
               or 78o(d)) and

          B)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
               material respects, the financial condition and results of
               operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods
               covered by the Report.

     This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so
that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that this
statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.


March 28, 2006                          /s/ Amy E. Essex
Dated                                   ----------------------------------------
                                        Amy E. Essex
Before the Second Division,

February 6, 1946

No. 50876.

#### Protests 67468-K, etc., of Strauss-Eckardt Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The uncontradicted evidence conclusively established that the merchandise in question is the same as that passed upon in Abstract 50488. In accordance therewith the claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

JAQUAY, et al. : 02-3882

DAUSE : 02-3928

GETTO : 02-3946

HERSH, et al. : 02-4104

DELLOLIO : 02-4141

VARMER.et al. : 02-4200

BURNS, et al. : 02-4233

SEBESTYEN, et al. : 02-4262

DIXON, et al. : 02-4325

:

VS. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, the Court having been previously

advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following

reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related

action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed.

[ X ] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the Case

Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation

transferring case to District of Minnesota..

Case 2:02-cv-04233-CG Document 2 Filed 07/15/2002 Page 1 of 2
It is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes and

place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final

disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________

Clifford Scott Green, Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04233-CG Document 2 Filed 07/15/2002 Page 2 of 2
# C_2016279EN.01001502.xml

| 1.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 9 May 2016 — Elke Roch, Jürgen Roch v Germanwings GmbH

(Case C-257/16)

(2016/C 279/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Elke Roch, Jürgen Roch

Applicants:

Defendant: Germanwings GmbH

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a technical defect of the aircraft caused by bird strike, that is, a collision in the air between the aircraft and birds, an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the regulation? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a technical defect of the aircraft caused by bird strike, that is, a collision in the air between the aircraft and birds, an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the regulation? (1)

1

| 2. | Is Article 5(3) of the regulation to be interpreted as meaning that the operating air carrier can rely also on extraordinary circumstances which did not occur on the flight booked by the passenger but on an immediately preceding flight with the aircraft scheduled for the booked flight as part of a flight diagram? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 5(3) of the regulation to be interpreted as meaning that the operating air carrier can rely also on extraordinary circumstances which did not occur on the flight booked by the passenger but on an immediately preceding flight with the aircraft scheduled for the booked flight as part of a flight diagram?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

1

---
No. 60750.

#### Glensder Textile Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 283820-K, etc. (New York).

*500Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk scarves or squares similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specially House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Wrasse:

IPAC Operational Metrics for March 2022

Volume by Transaction Type

Dollar Amount | % of Total Dollar Amount] Number of Transactions] _% of Total Number of Transactions’
Fiduciary (Investment & Borrowing) 26,766,859,306,383| 99.83%| 23,890) 17.75%
Buy/Sell 37,378,607,601 0.14% 109,374 81.27%|
Benefits (RITS) 7,430,878, 944] 0.03% 374 0.28%
[Check Aftermath (TRACS) 360,858,653] 0.00% 351 0.71%
Zero Dollar O 0.00% O 0.00%
[Grand Total - March 2022 26,812,029,651,580| 100.00%6| 100.00%|
[Grand Total - February 2022 21,541,128,100,149| 10.00% 10.00%
[January to February Change '5,270,901,551,431|
Percentage Change 24.5%|
[Grand Total - March 2021 19,712,317,345,609|
[March 2021 to March 2022 Change 7,099,712,305,971|
Percentage Change 36.0%4|
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DREW CHARLES ROSEN
, Appellant,

v.

ELKE L. ROSEN
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 16

- 2819

[ January 18, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Dale Ross, Judge; L.T. Case No. 10

- 14470

- 08

.

F. William Harvey of F. William Harvey, P.A., Tamarac and Wayne H. Miller of Wayne H. Miller, P.A., Sunrise, for appellant.

Paula Revene of Chorowski & Clary, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER
, C.J., T AYLOR and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 51320.

#### Protests 117459-G/335, etc., of J. E. Bernard & Co. et al. (Chicago, etc.).

Opinion by

Tilson, J,

Fblkwing the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 18


January 29, 1999


EnergySouth, Inc.
2828 Dauphin Street
Mobile, Alabama

Dear Sirs:

At your request, we have read the description included in your Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q to the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 1998 of the facts relating to the change in accounting method to
record an estimate of unbilled revenue for service rendered subsequent to the
meter reading date through the end of the reporting period. We believe, on the
basis of the facts so set forth and other information furnished to us by
officials of the Company, that the accounting change described in your Form 10-Q
is to an alternative accounting principle that is preferable under the
circumstances.

We have not audited any consolidated financial statements of EnergySouth, Inc.
and its consolidated subsidiaries as of any date or for any period subsequent to
September 30, 1998. Therefore, we are unable to express, and we do not express,
an opinion on the facts set forth in the above-mentioned Form 10-Q, on the
related information furnished to us by officials of the Company, or on the
financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of EnergySouth, Inc.
and its consolidated subsidiaries as of any date or for any period subsequent to
September 30, 1998.

Yours truly,

/s/ Deloitte & Touche

DELOITTE & TOUCHE
# C_2016326EN.01001701.xml

| 5.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/17

---

Appeal brought on 7 July 2016 by Inclusion Alliance for Europe GEIE against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 in Case T-539/13, Inclusion Alliance for Europe v Commission

(Case C-378/16 P)

(2016/C 326/29)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Inclusion Alliance for Europe GEIE (represented by: S. Famiani, avvocato)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the order under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order under appeal;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By decision of 17 July 2013, the European Commission requested payment from Inclusion Alliance for Europe of a total amount of EUR 212 411,89 in respect of Projects No 224 482 (MARE), No 216 820 (SENIOR), and No 225 010 (ECRN). Inclusion Alliance for Europe brought an action seeking annulment of that decision before the General Court, which gave a decision by reasoned order pursuant to Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Inclusion Alliance for Europe claims that the order under appeal should be set aside in its entirety, for the reasons outlined below.

The order under appeal failed to take into account or to apply the general principles of EU law in the assessment of the action brought against the Commission’s decision.

The General Court erroneously regarded the arguments put forward in the reply as pleas in law which had been submitted for the first time, whereas they are, on the contrary, clarifications of the pleas in law and arguments already set out in the original application, with the result that there is no infringement of Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of 2 May 1991.

Regarding the submissions made concerning the principles of EU law applicable to the audit procedure, the General Court provided an inadequate, or even no, statement of reasons, incorrectly continuing to bring the case back to the issue of interpretation/breach of contract rather than taking the infringement of the general principles of EU law into account.

The order under appeal fails to take into account or to apply the general principles of EU law with regard to the claim of unjust enrichment and the claim for compensation brought against the European Commission.

---
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS4678 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
#### The Fremont Cultivator Company *vs.*McCamy.

Although there may have been two verdicts in favor of a defendant, yet where the verdict was clearly contrary to evidence, the court should have granted a second new trial.

December 12, 1887.

New trial. Before Judge Fain. Murray superior court. February term, 1887.

Reported in the decision.

S. P. Maddox and McCutchen & Shumate, for plaintiff.

McCamy & Walker, for defendant.

Blandford, Justice.

The plaintiff in error brought an action against the defendant in error upon an account, which account contained several items for cultivators at certain prices. The plaintiff relied upon certain correspondence which had taken place between it and the defendant, McCamy. These letters consisted, first, in a circular in which the plaintiff requested the defendant to become its agent to sell these cultivators; also in letters of the defendant, and in a bill of lading of these cultivators, in which bill of lading it was stated'that the defendant bought the cultivators from the Fremont Cultivator Company at a certain price. There was also a letter from the plaintiff to the defendant, in which the company demanded payment from McCamy for these cultivators at the price at which they had been furnished. A reply to that letter was put in evidence, in which McCamy asked for further time, and insisted-that they ought not to sue him, as he had not been able to sell but one of the cultivators. Brinkerhoff, who was agent of this company, testified to these different letters, and stated that they made the contract between the parties, the contract being that they were to let him have these *344cultivators, etc. at a certain price, which he was finally to pay the company. McCamy was also put on the stand as a witness, and he certainly knew all about this transaction; yet he did not undertake .to explain, nor did he say anything about the letter to the company asking for further time for payment. Nor did he state that he sold these things as the agent of the company. Nothing of that sort appears in his testimony. This was the second trial of the case. On the first trial, the jury found in favor of McCamy, and the court granted a new trial. This was the second verdict in favor of McCamy, and the court would not disturb it. We think he should have disturbed it. The verdict was contrary to the evidence. The evidence certainly went to show the liability of McCamy to this company. No man knew better than did McCamy whether he sold these cultivators as agent of the company, or not; no man knew better than he what was meant by his letter asking for further time for payment to the company; and yet he offered no explanation. We think the court ought to have granted a new trial, upon the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence.

Judgment reversed.