alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.11


 


VALLON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.


 


SUBSCRIPTION FOR SHARES OF COMMON STOCK


 


Vallon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), hereby agrees to sell and issue to the undersigned purchaser
(the “Purchaser”), and the Purchaser hereby agrees to purchase and acquire from the Corporation, an aggregate
of [___________] shares of the Common Stock of the Corporation, par value $0.0001 per share, at a price of $[________] per share
(the “Shares”). The Purchaser acknowledges and agrees that the Shares subscribed for hereunder shall
be subject to and bound by the provisions of the Corporation’s Certificate of Incorporation and By-laws, as now and from
time to time in effect, and that any certificate(s) which shall evidence and represent the Shares shall be stamped or otherwise
imprinted with the following legend:


 


THE SHARES REPRESENTED BY THIS
CERTIFICATE HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED, OR UNDER ANY STATE SECURITIES LAWS. NEITHER
THIS SECURITY NOR ANY PORTION HEREOF OR INTEREST HEREIN MAY BE SOLD, ASSIGNED, TRANSFERRED, PLEDGED OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED
OF UNLESS THE SAME IS REGISTERED UNDER SAID ACTS AND APPLICABLE STATE SECURITIES LAWS OR UNLESS AN EXEMPTION FROM SUCH REGISTRATION
IS AVAILABLE AND THE CORPORATION HAS RECEIVED, AT THE EXPENSE OF THE HOLDER HEREOF, EVIDENCE OF SUCH EXEMPTION REASONABLY SATISFACTORY
TO THE CORPORATION (WHICH MAY INCLUDE, AMONG OTHER THINGS, AN OPINION OF COUNSEL SATISFACTORY TO THE CORPORATION).


 


THE SHARES REPRESENTED BY THIS
CERTIFICATE ARE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CORPORATION’S BYLAWS AND/OR CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION, A COPY OF EACH
OF WHICH WILL BE PROVIDED UPON REQUEST. BY ACCEPTING ANY INTEREST IN SUCH SHARES, THE PERSON ACCEPTING SUCH INTEREST SHALL BE DEEMED
TO AGREE TO AND SHALL BECOME BOUND BY ALL THE AFOREMENTIONED PROVISIONS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS.


 


The Purchaser represents
and warrants that (i) s/he is purchasing and acquiring the Shares for investment purposes and not for the purpose of resale,
and (ii) s/he is an “accredited investor” as that term is defined in Rule 501 of Regulation D promulgated
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.


 


The closing hereunder,
including payment for and delivery of the Shares, shall occur at the offices of the Corporation immediately following the execution
of this subscription agreement, or at such other time and place as the parties may mutually agree.


 


	 	 	AGREED, ACCEPTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED
	Date: January [___], 2018	 	 
	 	 	VALLON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
	 	 	 
	By:	            	 	By:	                            
	Name: [Purchaser Name]		Name:
	 	 	Title:
# Official Journal C 135/28 A

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 135 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6028 April 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 135

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6028 April 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 135/01 | Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 March 2017 to 31 March 2017(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council) | 1 |
| 2017/C 135/02 | Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 March 2017 to 31 March 2017(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC) | 7 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2017/C 135/01

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 March 2017 to 31 March 2017(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

1

2017/C 135/02

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 March 2017 to 31 March 2017(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC)

(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC)

7

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### J. Daniel RIVETTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Regis MOREAU (Estate of Emily Mistric), Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2786.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Third Circuit.

Aug. 7, 1969.

Daniel J. McGee, Mamou, Andrew Vi-drine, Church Point, for plaintiff-appellant.

Sandoz, Sandoz & Schiff, by Lawrence B. Sandoz, Jr., Opelousas, for defendant-appellee.

Before TATE, SAVOY and HOOD, JJ.

SAVOY, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court decreeing a statutory will to *763be null for the reason that at the time the will was confected the testatrix was unable to read the testament.

The facts are that Emily Mistric died testate, leaving an olographic will dated February 13, 1967. Her husband, Regis Mo-reau, had said instrument probated December 20, 1967.

On May 10, 1968, Daniel Rivette filed a petition in the instant suit seeking to annul the olographic will and to have the court recognize and decree to be valid a statutory will of the decedent made pursuant to LSA-R.S. 9:2442 et seq., and dated May 5, 1964. To this suit defendant filed an original and supplemental answer stating that the statutory will was null for the reason that the testatrix did not possess the qualifications required for the validity of a statutory testament in LSA-R.S. 9:2443 for the reason that she could not read at the time of the making of the will.

Defendant filed the depositions of Andrew Vidrine, Notary Public who officiated at the execution of the statutory will of May 5, 1964; and of several eye specialists. He then moved for a summary judgment which was granted by the district court. Plaintiff appealed.

LSA-R.S. 9:2443 reads as follows:

> “Except as provided in R.S. 9:2442 with respect to a testator who is physically unable to sign his name, those who know not how or are not able to sign their names, and those who know not how or are not able to read, cannot make dispositions in the form of the will provided for in R.S. 9:2442, nor be attesting witnesses thereto.”

LSA-C.C. Article 1588 declares in substance that the olographic will must be entirely written by testator.

The medical experts were of the opinion that when the statutory will was confected in 1964, the decedent was, for practical purposes, blind, and that her eyesight would not improve. On the other hand, depositions of the notary and others in evidence tend to show that, in fact, Mrs. Emily Mistric was able to read at the time she confected the statutory will in 1964.

We are of the opinion that there is a material issue of fact, and that the district judge was in error in granting the motion for summary judgment. Kay v. Carter, 243 La. 1095, 150 So.2d 27.

For the reasons assigned the judgment of the district court is reversed and remanded for further proceedings in the district court. Costs to await final determination of the matter.

Reversed and remanded.
1

23456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233

A B C D E F G

Agency: Census Bid Opening: 11/21/2019 at 11:00am JACKET NUMBER

GROSS 

CONTRACTOR JACKET BID PRICE % DISCOUNT DAYS 

1 Falcon Press - See File

Item 1: The Census is for our family 409-874 0.00% 0 Item 2: The Census is for our people 0.00% 0 

Total - $ 

2 Monarch Litho, Inc

Item 1: The Census is for our family 409-874 6,410.50 $ 2.00% 20 Item 2: The Census is for our people $ 2.00% 20 

6,410.50 

Total 12,821.00 $ 

3 District Creative Printing, Inc.

Item 1: The Census is for our family 409-874 7,065.00 $ 2.00% 20 Item 2: The Census is for our people $ 2.00% 20 

7,000.00 

Total 14,065.00 $ 

4 Doyle Printing and Offset Co.

Item 1: The Census is for our family 409-874 7,667.00 $ 5.00% 20 Item 2: The Census is for our people $ 5.00% 20 

7,667.00 

Total 15,334.00 $ 

5 Omaha Print dba Aridius Group

Item 1: The Census is for our family 409-874 7,770.29 $ 1.00% 20 Item 2: The Census is for our people $ 1.00% 20 

7,770.29 

Total 15,540.58 $ 

6 Las Vegas Color Graphics, inc.

Item 1: The Census is for our family 409-874 7,777.00 $ 4.77% 20 Item 2: The Census is for our people $ 4.77% 20 

7,777.00 
34

3536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566

A B C D E F G

Total 15,554.00 $ 

7 Visions

Item 1: The Census is for our family 409-874 7,974.00 $ 1.00% 20 Item 2: The Census is for our people $ 1.00% 20 

7,974.00 

Total 15,948.00 $ 

8 Specialty Print Communications

Item 1: The Census is for our family 409-874 8,476.80 $ 5.00% 20 Item 2: The Census is for our people $ 5.00% 20 

8,476.80 

Total 16,953.60 $ 

9 Consolidated Graphics dba Westland

Item 1: The Census is for our family 409-874 8,784.00 $ 0.50% 20 Item 2: The Census is for our people $ 0.50% 20 

8,784.00 

Total 17,568.00 $ 

10 NPC, Inc

Item 1: The Census is for our family 409-874 8,800.00 $ 2.00% 20 Item 2: The Census is for our people $ 2.00% 20 

8,800.00 

Total 17,600.00 $ 

11 Segerdahl Corporation

Item 1: The Census is for our family 409-874 9,969.00 $ 0.00% 0 Item 2: The Census is for our people $ 0.00% 0 

9,969.00 

Total 19,938.00 $ 

12 Gray Graphics

Item 1: The Census is for our family 409-874 10,080.00 $ 2.00% 20 Item 2: The Census is for our people $ 2.00% 20 

10,080.00 

Total 20,160.00 $ 

13 DHF Associates
67

68697071727374757677787980

A B C D E F G

Item 1: The Census is for our family 409-874 10,298.00 $ 0.00% 0 Item 2: The Census is for our people $ 0.00% 0 

10,298.00 

Total 20,596.00 $ 

14 Corporate Communications Group

Item 1: The Census is for our family 409-874 11,171.01 $ 2.00% 20 Item 2: The Census is for our people $ 2.00% 20 

11,171.01 

Total 22,342.02 $ 

15 Advantage Mailing, LLC Anahiem

Item 1: The Census is for our family 409-874 11,111.11 $ 0.00% 0 Item 2: The Census is for our people $ 0.00% 0 

11,111.11 

Total 22,222.22 $
Exhibit 32.2


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


In connection with The Beard Company's (the "Company") Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Herb Mee, Jr.,
President and Chief Financial Officer, 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:

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

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.



Date:  November 19, 2004             By:  /s/ HERB MEE, JR.
                                          Herb Mee, Jr.
                                          President and Chief Financial Officer
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 360

Entitled ‘‘Resolution of inquiry’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 10, 1994

Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas (for herself, Mr. COMBEST, Mr. BAKER of Louisiana,

Mr. MACHTLEY, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. ZELIFF, Mr. COLLINS

of Georgia, Mr. MCINNIS, Mr. HUFFINGTON, Mr. TALENT, Mr.

KNOLLENBERG, Mr. KIM, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. TORKILDSEN, and Mr.

PORTMAN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred jointly

to the Committees on Small Business, the Judiciary, and Post Office and

Civil Service

RESOLUTION

Entitled ‘‘Resolution of inquiry’’.

1 Resolved, That the President of the United States is

2 hereby requested to furnish the House, within fourteen

3 days, with the following information:

4 1. Since January 20, 1993, have you had any

5 communication of any kind with any official, em6 ployee or detailee of the Small Business Administra7 tion concerning the Specialized Small Business In8 vestment Company named Capital Management
2

HRES 360 IH

1 Services, Inc. or a Mr. David Hale? If so, please pro2 vide a detailed list of all such communications.

3 2. Since January 20, 1993, has any White

4 House employee had any communication of any kind

5 with any official, employee or detailee of the Small

6 Business Administration concerning the Specialized

7 Small Business Investment Company named Capital

8 Management Services, Inc. or a Mr. David Hale? If

9 so, please provide a detailed list of all such commu10 nications.

11 3. Did you direct Mr. Bernard Nussbaum to in12 form officials of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

13 or officials of the United States Park Police that

14 they could not search the office or offices of Mr.

15 Vincent W. Foster, Jr. on or after July 20, 1993 be16 cause of a claim of executive privilege? If you did

17 not, then who did?

18 4. What was the official job title of Mr. Vincent

19 W. Foster, Jr.? What were Mr. Foster’s official du20 ties? During Mr. Foster’s tenure at the White

21 House, was he assigned any issues or matters involv22 ing national security?

23 5. Did Mr. Foster, during his tenure at the

24 White House, have any of your personal or business

25 records, or the personal or business records of any
3

HRES 360 IH

1 other person unrelated to his official duties, in his

2 White House office or in any other office he may

3 have occupied in his official capacity? If so, why?

4 6. At the time that White House personnel were

5 informed of Mr. Foster’s death, who was placed in

6 charge of Mr. Foster’s office(s) and its contents?

7 For the forty-eight hours after White House person8 nel learned of the death of Mr. Foster, would you

9 provide the names and level of security clearance of

10 all Government employees and any other individuals

11 who entered Mr. Foster’s office(s)? Who supervised

12 these office visits? During the forty-eight hours after

13 White House personnel learned of the death of Mr.

14 Foster, were any materials removed from Mr. Fos15 ter’s office(s)? If so, what was removed, who re16 moved it, and how was it disposed of?

Æ
#### Cleo Blonsit GUFFY, Petitioner, v. Thurston Carey NETTLES, Jr., a minor, by Thurston Carey Nettles, as said minor’s Father and Next Friend, and Thurston Carey Nettles, Individually, Respondents.

No. I-475.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Sept. 12, 1967.

C. Douglas Brown, of Barron & Hilton, Panama City, for petitioner.

Logue, Bennett & Williams, Panama City, for respondents.

*103PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied on the authority of Pullman Co. v. Fleishel, 101 So.2d 188 (Fla.App.1st, 1958).

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 1643** 

MICHAEL G.D. ROWE , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. BANK OF AMERICA, NA; BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News
. Raymond A. Jackson , District Judge. ( 4:10

- cv - 00092

- RAJ

- FBS )

Submitted : February 9 , 2012 Decided: February 13, 2012

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLO YD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Henry W. McLaughlin, III, LAW OFFICE OF HENRY MCLAUGHLIN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert M. Tata, Georgianna G. Ramsey, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP, Norfolk, Virginia, for Ap pellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Michael G.D. Rowe appeals the district court’s order granting Bank of America, N.A. , and BAC Home Loans Servicing,
LP ’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss his action, brought pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C.A.
§§ 16 01

- 1667f (West 2009 & Supp. 2011 ). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we a ffirm on the reasoning of the district court
. See Rowe v. Bank of Americ a, NA , No. 4:10

- cv - 00092

- RAJ

- FBS (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 11 & entered Apr. 12 , 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0568

FILED

STATE OF MONTANA, DEC 0 1 2020

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

CONNER JAMES KAISER,

Defendant and Appellant.

BOVVe n Creenvvooci

Clerk of Supreme Court

State of Montana

ORDER

Conner James Kaiser moves this Court for appointment of counsel to represent him

in his appeal. As grounds, Kaiser states that he is incarcerated and that he is unable to pay

attorney fees because of his financial condition. In his filed Notice of Appeal, Kaiser

provides that the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County issued a final judgment in

on September 28, 2020 (Cause No. DDC-20-175(b)).

We secured a copy of this decision. The District Court sentenced Kaiser for

negligent homicide to a ten-year comrnitment with five years suspended to the Department

of Corrections. Kaiser has a recent felony conviction, and he may be entitled to

appointment of counsel in this appeal. Section 46-8-103(1), MCA. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Kaiser's Motion for Appointrnent of Counsel is GRANTED.

The Appellate Defender Division shall have thirty days from the date of this Order

within which to file either a Notice of Appearance or a Motion to Rescind this Order

appointing counsel. In the event the Appellant qualifies for appointed counsel, the

Appellate Defender Division shall immediately order transcripts.

The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to the

Appellate Defender Division, to counsel of record, and to Conner James Kaiser personally.

SADATED this I — day of December, 2020.

For the Court,

Chief Justice

12/01/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0568
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31173]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14252]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of the Secretary

[FWS-HQ-FAC-2018-N073; FF09F42300-FVWF97920900000-XXX]


Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council; Charter Renewal

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of renewal.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is published in accordance with the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act. Following consultation with the General 
Services Administration, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) has 
renewed the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council (Council) 
charter for 2 years.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Friar, Designated Federal 
Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 703-358-2056, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bfd3d6d1dbdee0d9cdd6decdffd9c8cc91d8d0c9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6e0207000a0f31081c070f1c2e08191d40090118">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Secretary has renewed the Council 
charter for 2 years. The Council advises the Secretary, through the 
Director, on aquatic conservation endeavors that benefit recreational 
fishery resources and recreational boating and that encourage 
partnerships among industry, the public, and government. The Council 
will conduct its operations in accordance with the provisions of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.). The Council will 
function solely as an advisory body.
    Certification: I hereby certify that the Sport Fishing and Boating 
Partnership Council is necessary and is in the public interest in 
connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Department of 
the Interior.

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.

    Dated: June 20, 2018.
Ryan Zinke,
Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 2018-14252 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
258 La. 915

#### COLLECTOR OF REVENUE v. J. L. RICHARDSON COMPANY.

No. 51463.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 7, 1971.

In re: J. L. Richardson Company applying for certiorari or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 247 So.2d 151.

Writ refused. The judgment is correct.
#### Smith *v.*Houston.

A verdict in replevin, that the plaintiff is entitled to the property, is not responsive to issue upon the pleas of *non-cepit*and property in defendant; and no valid judgment can he rendered upon it.

Where a plaintiff in replevin fails to prove any amount of damages he has sustained, he is entitled to nominal damages only.

*Appeal from Craighead Circuit Court.*

Hon. Ewing Y. Mitchell, Special Judge.

Ratcliffe, and English & Wilshire, for appellant.

Compton, J.

This is an action of replevin in *cepit,*determined in the Craighead circuit court.

*184The defendant pleaded, 1st, *non-cepit;*and 2d, property in himself; to which pleas issues were made up — all in short on the record — and submitted to a jury, who returned the following verdict: “"We, the jury, find that plaintiff is entitled to special property in the mare and colt, by virtue of his writ of replevin in former suit, and assess his damages at $85.” Upon this verdictjudgment was rendered for the damages assessed, with costs, and a writ was awarded by which the property in controversy was to be delivered to the plaintiff, the same not having been replevied at the commencement of the suit. The defendant moved in arrest of judgment and for a new trial; which motions were overruled, and he appealed to this court.

The objection that the verdict is not responsive to the issues, is well taken. If the verdict had been general, it would have been sufficient, upon the principle decided in *Wilson v. Bushnell, 1 Ark., 465,*that a general verdict is good on two issues, where the finding necessarily shows that the subject-matter of both issues was determined by the verdict. But here, the finding is special, and responsive to a part only of the matters in issue — that is to say, it determines that there was property in the plaintiff, but is silent as to whether or not it was tortiously taken from him by the defendant; both of these were material matters in issue, and both should have been passed upon by the jury; for the rule of law is, that where the verdict varies from the issue in a substantial matter, or finds only a part of that which is in issue, no valid judgment can be rendered, upon it. *Patterson v. The United States, 2 Whea., 221.*

The finding of the jury as to damages, is not warranted by the testimony. There is no evidence in the record tending to show what amount of damage the plaintiff sustained by reason of the detention of the property. In the ábsence of such evidence, the plaintiff is entitled to nominal damages only.

According to the view we have taken, the court erred in overruling the motion in arrest, as also the motion for a new trial. The judgment must, therefore, be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.