alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.10

 



 

August 20, 2015

 

Dear                 ,

 

The success of Bellerophon Therapeutics is the result of the commitment and unique skills of professionals like you. Retaining the right people is essential to achieving our objectives for patients and shareholders and for our success in the long-term. And by having the right team working on our objectives together, we believe this will be a rewarding experience for all of us.

 

You are an important member of the Bellerophon team to take our INOpulse program forward. This letter confirms your future role as                     . You will report directly to me. Your compensation package effective                       is highlighted below.

 

·                      Your base salary is $

 

·                      Your annual bonus* target is

 

Your bonus for 2015, normally paid in March 2016, will be paid by the end of January 2016 at 100% relative to target. It will be paid in the form of Bellerophon restricted shares that will fully vest in 12 months. The number of shares will be based on the closing price the day before the grant date. For future years we will revert to paying the bonus in March of the following year. It is our intent that we will continue to pay the annual bonus in shares with a one year vesting period.

 

You acknowledge and agree that you will be, and will remain, an employee at-will of Bellerophon, and that nothing in this letter is intended to be or create an obligation to employ you for any specific period of time. You further agree to hold all information relating to your compensation in strict confidence, and to not disclose this information to any party other than your financial or legal advisors.

 

I appreciate the commitment you have made to Bellerophon and to the patients we seek to help. I look forward to having you as part of the team.

 

Sincerely,

 

	
Jonathan Peacock
    
	
Chairman &   CEO
    


 

	
Acknowledged by:
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Employee   Signature
    	
 
    	
Date
    


 




* Bonus payments are contingent on meeting or exceeding performance criteria established for your position and determined by your manager.

** Stock awards are contingent on the execution of a stock agreement which will be provided separately.

 

53 Frontage Road, Suite 301, Hampton, NJ 08827 | 908-574-4770 | bellerophon.com
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45945

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

FRANK L. NICOLAI, III ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Filed: January 22, 2019

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Samuel Hoagland , District Judge.

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion to correct illegal sentence, affirmed

.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Chief Judge and BRAILSFORD, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Frank L. Nicolai, III was found guilty of second degree kidnapping and rape , Idaho Code
§§ 18

- 4503, 18

- 6101 . The district court imposed concurrent sentences of twenty

- five years
determinate for second degree kid napping and determinate life for rape . In 2013, Nicolai filed
an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for correction of an illegal sentence which the district court
denied. In 2018, Nicolai filed a second Rule 35(a) motion for correction of an illegal sentenc e, based upon an alleged speedy trial violation, which the district court denied. Nicolai filed a
motion to reconsider the denial of his second Rule 35(a) motion, and the district court
subsequently denied the motion to reconsider. Nicolai appeals

.2 In State v. Clements , 148 Idaho 82, 87, 218 P.3d 1143, 1148 (2009), the Idaho Supreme
Court held that the term “illegal sentence” under Rule 35 is narrowly interpreted as a sentence
that is illegal from the face of the record, i.e., does not involve significant questions of f act or require an evidentiary hearing. Rule 35 is a “narrow rule,” and because an illegal sentence may
be corrected at any time, the authority conferred by Rule 35 should be limited to uphold the
finality of judgments. State v. Farwell

, 144 Idaho 732, 73 5, 170 P.3d 397, 400 (2007). Rule 35
is not a vehicle designed to reexamine the facts underlying the case to determine whether a
sentence is illegal; rather, the rule only applies to a narrow category of cases in which the
sentence imposes a penalty that is simply not authorized by law or where new evidence tends to
show that the original sentence is excessive. Clements , 148 Idaho at 87, 218 P.3d at 1148.
The record supports the district court’s finding that Nicolai ’s sentence is not illegal.

Therefor e, the district court properly denied Nicolai ’s motion. Accordingly, we conclude no
abuse of discretion has been shown and the district court’s order denying Nicolai ’s Rule 35

motion is affirmed.
#### William Willie RIVERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. M-477.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 9, 1970.

William Willie Rivers, in pro. per.

*21Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and J. Christian Meffert, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration and appellant having failed to show reversible error, the order appealed is hereby affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
**-  Beltsville  \ BARC 
-  Animal & Natural Resources 
-  Animal Parasitic Diseases 
Printable VersionE-mail this pageThis site onlyAll ARS Advanced Search UBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">	You are here: 						Research / 								**Research Project:**DNA VACCINE TECHNOLOGY
**Location: Animal Parasitic Diseases**
												Project Number: 1265-32000-086-09Project Type:																				Trust

Start Date: Apr 01, 2007End Date: Mar 31, 2010

**Objective:**To develop in vitro immunoassays to measure the efficacy of DNA vaccines for poultry.
**Approach:**Develop in vitro cell culture system to measure gene expression, immune response, and vaccine efficacy.
    Project TeamLillehoj, Hyun  
Project Annual Reports FY 2007 
Related National Programs Animal Health(103)  							Last Modified: 11/05/2008 		ARS Home |USDA.gov |Site Map |Policies and Links FOIA |Accessibility Statement |Privacy Policy |Nondiscrimination Statement |Information Quality |USA.gov |White House

**
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, each of the undersigned officers of BWAY Holding Company and BWAY Corporation (the Companies) does hereby
certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

This annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 28, 2008 of the
Companies fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in this Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Companies.

Date: December 12, 2008



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/    Kenneth M. Roessler           
|                                     
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)        

Date: December 12, 2008



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/    Kevin C. Kern                
|Vice-President of Administration and
|Chief Financial Officer             
|(Principal Financial Officer)       

* A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Companies and will be retained by the Companies and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2

                                 ALPHATRADE.COM

                              A Nevada corporation

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of AlphaTrade.com. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Katharine Johnston, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (1) 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.

         Dated: April 21, 2010                      /s/ Katharine Johnston

                                                Its: Principal Financial Officer

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or

         other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the

         signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of

         this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be

         retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange

         Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certifications are

         accompanying the Company's Form 10-Q solely pursuant to section 906 of

         the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section

         1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being

         filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.

                                Exhibit 32.2 - 1
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

LAURA ROSALES,

Petitioner,

v.

RIC L. BRADSHAW, as Sheriff of Palm Beach County,

Respondent.

No. 4D19-1082

[August 28, 2019]

Petition for writ of prohibition to the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Scott R. Kerner, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2015-CA-013281-

XXXXMB-AJ.

Isidro M. Garcia of Garcia Law Firm, P.A., West Palm Beach, for 

petitioner.

Robert L. Norton and Suhaill M. Morales of Allen Norton & Blue, P.A., 

Coral Gables, for respondent.

GROSS, J.

Petitioner’s attorney represents multiple clients with pending lawsuits 

against respondent. In one of those cases, the trial judge recused himself 

based on his “family relationship” with the respondent. Relying on this 

recusal, petitioner’s attorney moved to recuse the trial court in this case. 

The court denied the motion.

Where a judge has recused himself because of a personal relationship 

with a party or attorney, that relationship is sufficient to require recusal a 

short time later when brought to the judge’s attention by motion. See 

Walls v. State, 910 So. 2d 432, 433 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). “‘Any time a 

judge feels it is necessary to recuse himself from an attorney’s case on 

account of an overriding friendship with the attorney then he should do so 

in all, not just some of that attorney’s cases.’” Mulligan v. Mulligan, 877 

So. 2d 791, 792 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (quoting Leigh v. Smith, 503 So. 2d 

989, 991 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)). The same principle applies where a judge 

recuses himself because of his relationship to a defendant. See Catasus 

v. Tabone, 19 So. 3d 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (holding that where the judge 
- 2 -

recused himself in a related proceeding because of a voluntarily revealed 

personal relationship with the parties, the judge should have granted a 

motion for disqualification in the separate case involving the same parties).

We reject respondent’s argument that recusal was not required because 

of minor technical deficiencies in the oath and certification accompanying 

the motion. See Livingston v. State, 858 So. 2d 353, 354-55 (Fla. 1st DCA 

2003).

We grant the petition for writ of prohibition and remand to the circuit 

court for assignment of the case to another judge.

WARNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Case 4:05-cr-00028-JEJ Document 44 Filed 05/31/06 Page 1 of 6
Case 4:05-cr-00028-JEJ Document 44 Filed 05/31/06 Page 2 of 6
Case 4:05-cr-00028-JEJ Document 44 Filed 05/31/06 Page 3 of 6
Case 4:05-cr-00028-JEJ Document 44 Filed 05/31/06 Page 4 of 6
Case 4:05-cr-00028-JEJ Document 44 Filed 05/31/06 Page 5 of 6
Case 4:05-cr-00028-JEJ Document 44 Filed 05/31/06 Page 6 of 6
**Exhibit 32.3**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

 

I,Gregg Buckbinder, the Chief Operating Officer and principal financial officerof Millburn Ridgefield Corporation, the Managing Owner of The Millburn WorldResource Trust (the “Trust”), certify that (i) the Annual Report of the Truston Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and (ii) the information contained in such Annual Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theTrust.

 

 
| Date:  | March 26, 2004 |                     |                   |   |   |
|--------|----------------|--------------------------|------------------------|--------|--------|
|   |           | /s/                      |  Gregg Buckbinder |   |   |
|   |           | Gregg Buckbinder         |                   |
|   |           | Chief Operating  Officer |                   |
|        |                |                          |                        |        |        |  |  |  |  |

 

1

----
**AD Economic Evaluation**



### Docket No . FAA - 20 13 - 0400 Directorate ID : 20 09 - SW - 48 - AD Helicopter Model: Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited Model 206A, 206B, 206L , 206L - 1, 206L - 3, 206L - 4, 222, 222B, 222U, 230, 407, 427, and 4 30 Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 2,601 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The proposed actions are intended to prevent failure of a bearing and the assembly in which it is installed and subsequent loss of control of the helicopt er. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $ 3,306 Labor per Helicopter ( 2 work- hour x 

### $ 8 5 /work hour s for an inspection) . It would take 2 work- hours and would cost $3,306 to replace a bearing. $ 170

Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $170 Total US Fleet Cost $ 442,170 Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Sharon Miles
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 1595
JANICE CLAUDEN, Grievance Hearing of Case No. 11326 , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. SOUTHSIDE COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD; FRANCES CLARK, Board of Director; ELIZABETH ENGELHORN, Executive Director; PAUL MANDEL, Director of Community Services; LYSAUNDRA JONES; DEE HOLLAND

BROCK, Human Rights Advocate; ALLYSON COLLINS; STACY PALMER; SHARON GAVITT, Human Resource Manager , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal fr om the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. John A. Gibney, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:19

- cv
- 00601

- JAG )

Submitted : August 25, 2020 Decided: August 27, 2020

Before KING and AGEE , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Janice Clauden, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Paul Holdsworth, Courtney Martin Malveaux, JACKSON LEWIS PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Janice Clauden appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). As an initial matter , we confine our appellate review to the
issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Liberally construed, Clauden’s
informal briefs challenge only the district court’s dismissal of her due process claim for
failure to state a claim and dismissal as untimely of her claims for wrongful termination,
hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e

- 17

. Clauden therefore has forfeited appellate review of the
remainder of the district court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”)

. Turning to Clauden’s preserved claims, we have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. A ccordin gly, we affirm as to these issues for the reasons stated by the
district court. Clauden v. Southside Cmty. Servs. Bd. , No. 3:19

- cv
- 00601

- JAG (E.D. Va. May 1, 2020); see also Ott v. Md. Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs. , 909 F.3d 655, 660

- 61 (4th Cir. 20 18) ( discussing equitable tolling ); Cannon v. Village of Bald Head Island , 891 F.3d 489, 501, 503 (4th Cir. 2018) ( describing requirements of due process claim ). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presen ted in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           8,753
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,534
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,171
<INVENTORY>                                     37,775
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,328
<PP&E>                                         134,581
<DEPRECIATION>                                  33,887
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 194,026
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          116,327
<BONDS>                                         53,402
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           270
<OTHER-SE>                                      64,652
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   194,026
<SALES>                                        109,687
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               109,687
<CGS>                                          143,259
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  143,259
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                63,743
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (3,387)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (100,702)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,647)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (99,055)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (99,055)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (5.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (5.49)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 2, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46247-46248]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23160]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. TM98-1-88-000]


Black Marlin Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

August 26, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 22, 1997, Black Marlin Pipeline Company 
(Black Marlin) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet to be 
effective October 1, 1997:

Eighth Revised Sheet No. 4

    Black Marlin states that the above-referenced tariff sheet is being 
filed pursuant to Section 18 of the General Terms and Conditions of 
Black Marlin's tariff to reflect an increase of the ACA charge to 
0.21 cents/MMBtu based on the Commission's Annual Charge Billing for 
Fiscal Year 1997.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC, 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.211 and 385.214 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public

[[Page 46248]]

inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
FR Doc 97-23160 Filed 8-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**Exhibit99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

** **

**REGARDINGPERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS**

 

 

I, Ronald J. Turner,President and Chief Executive Officer of TC PipeLines GP, Inc., the generalpartner of TC PipeLines, LP (the Partnership), in compliance with 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 hereby certify in connection with the Partnership’s Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the Report), that:

 

•                  theReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

•                  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 
| Dated:  May 15, 2003 |   | /s/ Ronald J. Turner                       |   |
|---------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|                      |   | Ronald J. Turner                           |
|                      |   | President and Chief  Executive Officer     |
|                      |   | TC PipeLines GP, Inc.,  as general partner |

 

----