alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
RESTORE ACT Direct Component Multiyear Plan Matrix — Department of the Treasury OMB Approval No. 1505-0250

Applicant Name:

1. CUMULATIVE DIRECT COMPONENT ALLOCATION AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION TO APPLICANT: 

3. Primary Direct Component Eligible Activity 

Further Described in Application (Static Field)

4. Activity Number and Activity Title 

(Static Field)

5. Location - Municipality(ies) 

(Static Field, locations also shown 

on attached map)

6. Total Funding Resources For Activity Budget (refer to Instructions)

7. Proposed 

Start Date 

mm/yyyy

8. Actual Start 

Date mm/yyyy 

(Static Field)

9. Proposed 

End Date 

mm/yyyy 

10. Actual End 

Date mm/yyyy 

(Static Field)

11. Proposed High Level Milestones 

Further Described in Application

6a. Direct Component 

Contribution

6b. Other RESTORE Act 

Contribution 

6c. Other Third Party 

Contribution 6d. Total Project Budget

Restoration and Protection of the 

Natural Resources, Ecosystems, 

Fisheries, Marine and Wildlife 

Habitats, Beaches, and Coastal 

Wetlands of the Gulf Coast Region

Closure of Two (2) Breaches on the 

North Shore of Vermilion Bay

Erath, LA

(see location on attached 

map) $285,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $285,000.00 Feb-17 Feb-19

Preliminary Design 

Final Design 

Construction

Planning assistance

Vermilion Parish Hurricane 

Protection System - Segment 1A

Delcambre, LA

(see location on attached 

map) $309,579.12 $0.00 $0.00 $309,579.12 Feb-17 Feb-19

Preliminary Design 

Surveying

Geotechnical Investigation

Permitting & Environmental

Property Acquisition

12. TOTAL FUNDING FOR BUDGET (refer to Instructions) $594,579.12 $0.00 $0.00 $594,579.12

Vermilion Parish Police Jury

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 1505-0250. Comments concerning the time required to complete this information collection, including the time to review 

instructions, search existing data resources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information, should be directed to the Department of the Treasury, RESTORE Act Program, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20220.

$594,579.12 $594,579.12

2. TOTAL ALLOCATIONS PLUS KNOWN FUNDS NOT YET DEPOSITED IN TRUST FUND FOR DIRECT 

COMPONENT:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 

Taylor v. Crosby, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5820.] 

NOTICE 

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 

advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to 

promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 

South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 

formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 

the opinion is published. 

SLIP OPINION NO. 2016-OHIO-5820

TAYLOR ET AL., APPELLEES, v. CROSBY ET AL., APPELLANTS. 

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as Taylor v. Crosby, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5820.] 

Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed on the authority of Corban v. Chesapeake 

Exploration, L.L.C., and Walker v. Shondrick-Nau, and cause remanded to 

trial court for determination regarding compliance with 2006 version of 

Dormant Mineral Act. 

(No. 2014-1886—Submitted August 31, 2016—Decided September 15, 2016.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Belmont County, 

No. 13 BE 32, 2014-Ohio-4433. 

__________________ 

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of 

Corban v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2016-Ohio-5796, 

___ N.E.3d ___, and Walker v. Shondrick-Nau, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2016-Ohio5793, ___ N.E.3d ___, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

determination regarding compliance with the 2006 version of the Dormant Mineral 

Act. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, and FRENCH,JJ., 

concur. 

PFEIFER, and O’NEILL, JJ., dissent. 

_________________ 

Frizzi Law Offices and Daniel L. Frizzi Jr., for appellees Benjamin F. 

Taylor and Donald F. Taylor. 

Jividen Law Offices, P.L.L.C., David A. Jividen, and Chad C. Groome, for 

appellee Mary Lou Hutchins. 

Myser & Davies, Richard A. Myser, and Adam L. Myser, for appellants. 

_________________
FIRST AMENDMENT


TO


CAPRICOR, INC.


2012 RESTATED EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN


(Adopted February 12, 2014)


 


Capricor Therapeutics,
Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Capricor, Inc. 2012 Restated Equity Incentive Plan, effective as of
November 13, 2012 (the “Plan”), and, pursuant to Section 17 of the Plan, the Company’s Board of
Directors (the “Board”) may at any time amend, alter, suspend or terminate the Plan.


 


The
Board desires to adopt an amendment to the Plan to: (1) change the name of the Plan from the “Capricor, Inc. 2012 Restated
Equity Incentive Plan” to the “Capricor Therapeutics, Inc. 2012 Restated Equity Incentive Plan”; (2) provide
that all references to the “Company” (other than in the preamble) shall be deemed to refer to Capricor Therapeutics,
Inc. and its Parent and Subsidiaries, as applicable; and (3) provide that all references in the Plan to “Common Stock”
shall mean the common stock of Capricor Therapeutics, Inc., par value $0.001 per share.


 


The
Plan is hereby amended as follows:


 


		1.	The name of the Plan is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:



 


“Capricor Therapeutics,
Inc. 2012 Restated Equity Incentive Plan”


 


		2.	The first sentence of the preamble is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:



 


“This 2012 Restated Equity
Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) replaces the 2006 Stock Option Plan (the “Former Plan”) formerly
adopted by Capricor, Inc. with respect to Awards made on or after the date the Plan becomes effective.”


 


		3.	Subsection (i) of Section 2 of the Plan is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:



 


““Company”
means Capricor Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and its Parent and Subsidiaries, as applicable, or any successor thereto.”


 


		4.	For purposes of clarity, all references in the Plan to “Common Stock” shall be deemed
to mean the common stock of the Company.



 


		5.	The modifications set forth above shall not affect any other provisions of the Plan.



 


[Signature provided on following page.]


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


In
Witness Whereof, the undersigned adopts this First Amendment to the Plan on behalf of the Company as of the date first
written above.


 


 


	 	CAPRICOR THERAPEUTICS, INC.
	 	 
	 	/s/ Linda Marbán, Ph.D.
	 	 
	 	By: Linda Marbán, Ph.D.
	 	Title: Chief Executive Officer
#### Juanita BELL, Appellant, v. Guy A. BARGERON and wife, Christine Bargeron, Appellees.

No. EE-137.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 15, 1977.

Gillis E. Powell, Jr., Crestview, for appellant.

James E. Moore of Moore & Anchors, Niceville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment construing a deed. Our examination of the record reveals that the learned trial judge properly and correctly construed the deed in accordance with the plain and unambiguous provisions thereof. Accordingly, no error having been demonstrated, the final judgment here appealed is

AFFIRMED.

McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and MELVIN, JJ., concur.
EX-10.28



 Exhibit 10.28 

Statement and Acknowledgment 

I, as the shareholder of the 20% equity interest in Jiandatong Health Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as
“Company”), hereby state and acknowledge that, in the event that Mr. Hu Haiqing transfers, in whole or in part, the 80% equity interest in the Company held by him to any third party, I agree to such equity transfer unconditionally,
waiver my right of first refusal with respect to such equity transfer, and agree to cooperate to go through the formalities in relation to such equity transfer. 

In the event that I transfer any of the equity interest held by me to the third party, I agree to cause such third party to comply with the
obligations under this statement. 
 It is hereby stated and acknowledged. 

 

			
		 	By: Ma Rui
		
	Signature:	 	/s/ Ma Rui
	
	December 30, 2013
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8430]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4562]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Intelligence Agency, Scientific Advisory Board Closed 
meeting

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Intelligence Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of Subsection (d) of Section 10 of 
Public Law 92-463, as amended by Section 5 of Public Law 94-409, notice 
is hereby given that a closed meeting of the DIA Scientific Advisory 
Board has been scheduled as follows:

DATES: March 11-12, 1997 (800 am to 1600 pm).

ADDRESSES: The Defense Intelligence Agency, Bolling AFB, Washington, 
D.C. 20340-5100.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Maj Michael W. Lamb, USAF, Executive Secretariat, DIA Scientific 
Advisory Board, Washington, D.C. 20340-1328, (202) 231-4930.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The entire meeting is devoted to the 
discussion of classified information as defined in Section 552b(c)(I), 
Title 5 of the U.S. Code and therefore will be closed to the public. 
The Board will receive briefings on and discuss several current 
critical intelligence issues and advise the Director, DIA, on related 
scientific and technical matters.

    Dated: February 20, 1997.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 97-4562 Filed 2-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
**Exhibit 10.50**

 

**FIRST AMENDMENT TO**

**BJ SERVICES DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN**

 

**WHEREAS, BJ SERVICES COMPANY, U.S.A.** (the “Company”) has heretofore adopted the **BJ SERVICES DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN** (the “Plan”) for the benefit of its eligible employees; and 

 

**WHEREAS,** the Company desires to amend the Plan with respect to certainnew claims procedure rules based upon regulations issued by the Department of Labor; and 

 

**WHEREAS,** the Company also desires to amend the Plan in certain other respects; 

 

**NOW, THEREFORE,** the Plan shall be amended as follows and such amendments shall supersede the provisions of the Plan to the extent those provisionsare inconsistent with the provisions of such amendments: 

 

I. Effective as ofJanuary 1, 2002: 

 

1. Section 3.1(b) of the Plan shall bedeleted and the following shall be substituted therefor: 

 

“(b) A Member who makes the maximum Cash or Deferred Contributions allowable under the Thrift Plan may elect to defer receipt of an amount not to exceed 20% of his Compensation, less his Cash or DeferredContributions to the Thrift Plan, for a Plan Year.” 

 

2.The reference to “Before-Tax Contributions” in Section 3.1(c) of the Plan shall be deleted and reference to “Cash or Deferred Contributions” shall be substituted therefor. 

 

II. Effective for Plan benefit claims filed after January 1, 2002, Section 5.10 of the Planshall be deleted and the following shall be substituted therefor: 

 

“**5.10 Claims Procedures.** Claims for Plan benefits and reviews of Plan benefit claims which have been denied or modified will be processed in accordance with the written Plan claims proceduresestablished by the Committee, which procedures are hereby incorporated by reference as part of the Plan.” 

 

III. As amended hereby, the Plan is specifically ratified and reaffirmed. 

 

**EXECUTED**this 20th day of December, 2002.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 2140

In re: DARREL R. FISHER , Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh . ( 5:23

- hc

- 02154

- FL

- RJ )

Submitted : December 20, 2023 Decided: February 1, 2024

Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Darrel R. Fisher, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-2140 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Darrel R. Fisher has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the district court’s order dismiss ing his action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court orde r. We conclude that Fisher is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. , 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy

- Brown , LLC , 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy

- Brown , 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). Fisher seeks relief from the district court’s dismis sal order. However, mandamus “may not be used as a substitute for appeal.” In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief Fisher seeks is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and ar gument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIE D USCA4 Appeal: 23-2140 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
No. 10458.

#### The Semler Milling Co. *v.*The Ohio Grain Dealers’ Mutual Fire Association.

Decided May 12, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Butlei county.

*Messrs. Cabell & Kohl*and *Mr. Aaron Wesco,*for plaintiff in error.

*.Mr. J. W. Mooney,*for defendant in error.

Former judgment adhered to.

Crew, Spear and Davis, JJ. concur.
#### James H. STEPHENS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-493.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 13, 1973.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, Brad-enton, James H. Stephens, in pro. per., for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and David Luther Woodward, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, James H. Stephens, entered a plea of guilty to the charge of auto theft. He was represented in the trial court by court-appointed counsel and sentenced to serve a term of five years in the state penitentiary.

Subsequently, notice of .appeal was filed to review the judgment and sentence. A brief on behalf of appellant was filed in this court by the public defender.

After reviewing the facts contained in the record the public defender states in his brief that he “ . . . can find nothing which would arguably support an appeal.” Whereupon, he requested to be relieved as attorney of record for appellant under the rationale of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493. The record shows that the public defender has served a copy of said brief upon James H. Stephens, and, subsequent thereto, James H. Stephens filed here a brief pro se.

We have carefully examined the entire record on file here on behalf of appellant, including his own pro se brief of March 6, 1973, and find nothing therein sufficient to justify a reversal of the judgment and sentence. Accordingly, the judgment and sentence appealed is hereby

Affirmed.

LILES, Acting C. J., and McNULTY and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.
EX-10.21



 Exhibit 10.21 
 STANCORP FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. 
 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN FOR SENIOR
OFFICERS 
  
  

SECOND AMENDMENT 
  

 
 WHEREAS, StanCorp Financial
Group, Inc. (“Employer”) has adopted the StanCorp Financial Group, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan for Senior Officers (“Plan”) which became effective January 1, 1976, and which was most recently restated effective
January 1, 2008; and 
 WHEREAS, the Employer has the authority to amend the Plan pursuant to Section 6.03 of the Plan; and

 WHEREAS, the Employer, by and through its Board of Directors, has delegated to its Chief Executive Officer the authority to appoint one or
more individuals to control and/or manage Plan operation and administration which includes reviewing and deciding benefit claims and appeals under the Plan; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended such that the Employer’s Director, Compensation and Benefits shall be responsible for managing Plan operation and administration which includes reviewing and
deciding benefit claims and appeals under the Plan. If the position with the title of Director, Compensation and Benefits ceases to exist, then these responsibilities shall be delegated to the individual whose responsibilities most closely resemble
the responsibilities of the Director, Compensation and Benefits. 
 This Amendment shall be effective July 11, 2013. 

 

			
	 	 	STANCORP FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.
		
	 By:
	 	  

		 	(Signature)
		
		 	 J. Greg Ness

		 	(Print or Type Name)
		
	 Title:
	 	 Chief Executive Officer

		
	 Date Signed:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 36 (Monday, February 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4408]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP97-251-000]


Viking Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Penalty Revenue 
Crediting Report

February 18, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 12, 1997, Viking Gas Transmission 
Company (Viking) filed a report of penalty revenues and credit for the 
period of November 1, 1995 through October 31, 1996.
    Viking states that copies of the filing have been mailed to all of 
its jurisdictional customers and to affected state regulatory 
commissions.
    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, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure. All such motions or protests must be filed on 
or before February 25, 1997. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make the 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 inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-4408 Filed 2-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7336 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7336

    To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit franchising 
authorities from requiring approval for the sale of cable systems, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 25, 2020

 Mr. Burgess introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit franchising 
authorities from requiring approval for the sale of cable systems, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Consumer Access to Broadband for 
Local Economies and Competition Act'' or the ``CABLE Competition Act''.

SEC. 2. SALES OF CABLE SYSTEMS.

    (a) In General.--Section 621 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
U.S.C. 541) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(g)(1) A franchising authority may not--
            ``(A) preclude a cable operator from transferring a 
        franchise to a person to which such franchise was not initially 
        granted; or
            ``(B) require a cable operator to which a franchise is 
        initially granted to receive approval from the franchising 
        authority for the transfer of such franchise to a person who to 
        which such franchise was not initially granted.
    ``(2) In the case of the transfer of a franchise to a person to 
which such franchise was not originally granted, a franchising 
authority may require a cable operator to which a franchise was 
initially granted to, not later than 15 days after a transfer of a 
franchise, notify the franchising authority in writing of such 
transfer.
    ``(3) In this subsection, the term `transfer' means the assignment 
rights under a franchise through any transaction, including a merger, 
sale, assignment, restructuring, or transfer of control of a cable 
operator or a cable system.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--This section, and the amendment made by 
subsection (a), shall take effect 6 months after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (c) Application.--This section, and the amendment made by 
subsection (a) shall apply to a franchise granted--
            (1) on or after the effective date established by 
        subsection (b); or
            (2) before such date, if such franchise (including any 
        renewal term thereof) is in effect on such date.
                                 <all>
```