alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michael Riccardelli et al., Respondents, v Robert Crawford et al., Appellants.

[655 NYS2d 378]

In an action, *inter*alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.), dated December 11, 1995, which, upon an order dated November 6, 1995, granting the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action in the complaint, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal sum of $62,175.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiffs’ motion is denied, and the order dated November 6, 1995, is vacated.

The plaintiffs failed to establish through competent evidence that there existed five loan agreements between the plaintiffs and the defendants payable on demand. The defendants raised triable issues of fact with respect to the actual parties to the loan agreements and the terms of repayment. Where the intent of the parties depends upon a choice between reasonable inferences to be drawn from extrinsic evidence, interpretation of an agreement must be determined by the trier of fact *(see, Federated Assocs. v Howard Johnson Co.,*144 AD2d 531). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action in the complaint. O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT
10.4(a)**
 
 **INCENTIVE
STOCK OPTION AWARD**
 **PURSUANT
TO HABERSHAM BANCORP**
 **1996
INCENTIVE STOCK OPTION PLAN**
 
 THIS
AWARD is made as of the Grant Date by HABERSHAM BANCORP (the "Company") to
_______________, (the “Optionee").
 
 Upon and
subject to the Terms and Conditions attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference, the Company hereby awards as of the Grant Date to Optionee an
incentive stock option (the "Option") pursuant to the Plan, as described below,
to purchase the Option Shares.
 
 A.
    Grant
      Date:**December
      31,
______.**
 
 B.
    Type
      of Option: Incentive Stock
Option.
 
 C.
    Plan:
      Habersham Bancorp 1996 Incentive Stock Option
Plan.
 
 D.
    Option
      Shares: All or any part of _______**shares**of
      the Company's common stock, $1.00 par value per share ("Common
      Stock").
 
 E.
    Exercise
      Price:**$_______ per share**of
      Common Stock. The Exercise Price is the Fair Market Value, determined
      pursuant to the Plan, of a share of Common Stock on the Grant Date or, if
      Optionee owns stock possessing more than 10% of the total combined voting
      power of all classes of stock of the Company or its parent or any
      subsidiary, 110% of the Fair Market Value.
 
 F.
    Option
      Period: The Option may be exercised as to all or any portion of the Option
      Shares during the Option Period, which commences on the Grant Date and
      ends generally on the earliest of (a) the fifth (5th) anniversary of the
      Grant Date; (b) the date the Optionee experiences a Termination of
      Employment for any reason other than due to death; or (c) one (1) year
      following the date of the Optionee's death. Note that other limitations to
      exercising the Option, as described in the attached Terms and Conditions,
      may apply.
 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has executed and sealed this Award as of the Grant
Date set forth above.
 HABERSHAM
      BANCORPBy:Title:
 By
signing below, the Optionee hereby accepts the Award and agrees to the Terms and
Conditions attached hereto.
 
  Optionee
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In re Joyce Columbus

Appellate case number: 01

- 21

- 00272

- CV

Trial court case number: 035118

Trial court: 12th District Court of Grimes County

This original proceeding was abated to permit the successor judge to reconsider the order

relator is challenging. A supplemental clerk’s record was filed containing the successor judge’s

ruling.

Accordingly, the abatement is lifted and the case is reinstated o n the active docket

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

____

/s/ Peter Kelly

_________  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __ October 27, 2022

____
[No. 783-1.

Division One—Panel 1.

December 6, 1971.]

#### Edward G. Campbell, *Appellant,*v. Gary E. Baffaro *et al., Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 694322, Charles R. Denney, J., entered June 19, 1970. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
# C_2022213EN.01001801.xml

| 30.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/18

---

Appeal brought on 15 December 2021 by Wolfgang Kappes against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 13 October 2021 in Case T-429/20, Sedus Stoll AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-784/21 P)

(2022/C 213/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Wolfgang Kappes (represented by: B. Schneiders, J. Schneiders, T. Pfeifer, N. Gottschalk, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Sedus Stoll AG, European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 5 April 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.

---
# Feb 2022
#### Donald R. LUNA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-109.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 5, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 10.18.3

 


EXHIBIT A TO NOVEMBER 22, 2013 MINUTES


FORM OF THIRD AMENDMENT


TO THE HUMACYTE, INC.


2005 STOCK OPTION PLAN


 


THIS THIRD AMENDMENT to the
Humacyte, Inc. 2005 Stock Option Plan is dated as of November 22, 2013.


 


WHEREAS, the Board of Directors
of Humacyte, Inc. (the “Company”) has adopted and the shareholders of the Company have approved the Humacyte,
Inc. 2005 Stock Option Plan, as amended on March 31, 2008 (the “Plan”); and


 


WHEREAS, the Board of Directors
determines that it is in the best interest of the Company to amend the Plan in order to increase the number of shares of common
stock issuable pursuant to options granted under the Plan from Four Million Five Hundred Twenty-Two Thousand Sixty-Four (4,522,064)
shares to Eight Million Three Hundred Seventy-Two Thousand Sixty-Four (8,372,064) shares.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall
be amended as follows:


 


1. The first
sentence of Paragraph 5.1 of the Plan shall be deleted in its entirety and the following substituted in lieu thereof:


 


“Subject to adjustment as provided
in Section 14.1, the aggregate number of shares of Stock reserved and available for Awards or which may be used to provide a basis
of measurement for or to determine the value of an Award (such as with a Stock Appreciation Right or Performance Share Award)
shall be Eight Million Three Hundred Seventy-Two Thousand Sixty-Four (8,372,064), of which not more than one third may be granted
as Awards of Restricted Stock or unrestricted Stock Awards.”


 


2. Except as herein amended, the terms and provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect as originally adopted and
approved.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned
hereby certifies that this Third Amendment was duly adopted by the Board of Directors as of November 22, 2013 and by the shareholders
of the Company as of [December 9, 2013].


 


	 	 	 	HUMACYTE,
    INC.
	[CORPORATE
    SEAL]	 	 	 
	 	 	 	By:	/s/ Carrie
    S. Cox
	 	 	 	 	Carrie S. Cox
	ATTEST:	 	 	President and
    CEO
	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Paul A.
    Boyer	 	 	 
	 	Paul Boyer,
    Assistant Secretary
# C_2022463EN.01003501.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — the airscreen company v EUIPO — Moviescreens Rental (airframe)

(Case T-539/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative mark airframe - Absolute grounds for refusal - No descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 463/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: the airscreen company GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and D. Mienert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Klee and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Moviescreens Rental GmbH (Damme, Germany) (represented by: D. Schulz and P. Stelzig, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 July 2021 (Case: R 63/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the airscreen company GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the airscreen company GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.

---
Exhibit 23(a)



Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on Form S-8 of Material Sciences Corporation (No.s 33-00067, 33-40610, 33-41310,
33-57648, 33-81064, 333-15679, 333-15677, 333-33885, 333-33897 and 333-88387) of our report dated May 10, 2004, November 23, 2004 as to Note 19 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to: (i) the
restatement described in Note 19, (ii) the Companys change in its method of accounting for goodwill and intangible assets, (iii) disclosures, related to the aforementioned accounting change, of financial statement amounts related to the 2002
financial statements, (iv) the change in the composition of reportable segments in 2004 and 2003 and adjustments of financial statement amounts related to the 2002 financial statements, (v) the adjustment to properly classify cash from the
cancellation (issuance) of letters of credit in the Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows, and (vi) the 2002 financial statements were audited by other auditors who have ceased operations and for which we have expressed no opinion or other form
of assurance other than with respect to such disclosures and adjustments) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Material Sciences Corporation for the year ended February 29, 2004.

|                                   
|-----------------------------------
|                                   
|/s/    DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP       
|                                   
|Deloitte & Touche LLP              
|                                   
|Chicago, Illinois November 23, 2004



1
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

The Board of Directors 

Analytical Surveys, Inc. 

 

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registrations (No. 33-53950, No. 33-59940,No. 333-47365 and No. 333-116513) on Form S-8 of Analytical Surveys, Inc. of our report dated December 22, 2003, except as to note 16, which is dated as of May 13, 2004, and except as to paragraphs three and four of note 17 which are as of June 30,2004, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Analytical Surveys, Inc. and subsidiaries as of September 30, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss) andcash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended September 30, 2003, which report appears in the September 30, 2003 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 2) of Analytical Surveys, Inc. 

 

Our report refers to a change in the Company’s method of accounting for goodwill in2002. 

 

Our report contains an explanatory paragraph that states the Company hasrestated the consolidated balance sheets as of September 30, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss) and cash flows for the years ended September 30, 2003 and2002. 

 

Our report contains an explanatory paragraph that states that theCompany has suffered significant operating losses in 2003 and 2002 and does not currently have any external financing in place to fund working capital and debt requirements, which raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continueas a going concern. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty. 

 

**KPMG LLP**

 

San Antonio, Texas 

August 10, 2004
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2009-1251

Directorate Identifier: 2009NM133AD

A340-71-4006, ROl --- 5/14109

ROHR RA34071-32 --- 12/11/08

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. Sw.,

Renton, WA 98057

4252271221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 pm, Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/0512008
# C_2022432EN.01002702.xml

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Task Food v EUIPO — Foodtastic (ENERGY CAKE)

(Case T-686/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark ENERGY CAKE - Declaration of invalidity - Absolute grounds for invalidity - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/2011))

(2022/C 432/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Task Food s.r.o. (Bratislava, Slovakia), authorised to replace energy cake GmbH (represented by: A. Bernegger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Klee and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Foodtastic GmbH (Dortmund, Germany)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 August 2021 (Case R 2324/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Authorises Task Food s.r.o. to replace energy cake GmbH as applicant; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Authorises Task Food s.r.o. to replace energy cake GmbH as applicant;

| 2. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action;

| 3. | Orders Task Food to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Task Food to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 513, 20.12.2021.

---
<PAGE>




                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

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


     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S)1350, as adopted pursuant to (S)906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of GlycoGenesys, Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:

     (1) the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2002, (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 as of and for the periods presented in the Report.


Dated: November 19, 2002


By: /s/ John W. Burns                       By: /s/ Bradley J. Carver
    -------------------------                   ---------------------------
Name: John W. Burns                         Name: Bradley J. Carver
Title: SVP, CFO & Secretary                 Title: CEO & President
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1008 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1008

   To prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from implementing 
 proposed policy changes that would permit passengers to carry small, 
                    non-locking knives on aircraft.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 22, 2013

    Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. 
 Menendez, and Ms. Murkowski) introduced the following bill; which was 
  read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                             Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from implementing 
 proposed policy changes that would permit passengers to carry small, 
                    non-locking knives on aircraft.

    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 ``Keep Knives Out of Our Skies Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY CHANGE TO PERMIT SMALL, 
              NON-LOCKING KNIVES ON AIRCRAFT.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, on and 
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland 
Security may not implement any change to the prohibited items list of 
the Transportation Security Administration that would permit passengers 
to carry small, non-locking knives through passenger screening 
checkpoints at airports, into sterile areas at airports, or on board 
passenger aircraft.
    (b) Prohibited Items List Defined.--In this section, the term 
``prohibited items list'' means the list of items passengers are 
prohibited from carrying as accessible property or on their persons 
through passenger screening checkpoints at airports, into sterile areas 
at airports, and on board passenger aircraft pursuant to section 
1540.111 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on 
January 1, 2013).
                                 <all>
```
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1241

To extend the temporary suspension of the duty on N-acetylsulfanilyl chloride.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 15 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Mr. CHAFEE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To extend the temporary suspension of the duty on Nacetylsulfanilyl chloride.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. N-ACETYLSULFANILYL CHLORIDE.

4 Heading 9902.29.97 of subchapter II of chapter 99

5 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

6 is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/92’’ and inserting ‘‘12/

7 31/94’’.

8 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by this Act

10 applies with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from
2

•S 1241 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after

2 the date of the enactment of this Act.

3 (b) RELIQUIDATION.—Notwithstanding section 514

4 of the Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law,

5 upon proper request filed with the appropriate customs of6 ficer on or before the 90th day after the date of the enact7 ment of this Act, any entry of an article described in sub8 heading 9902.29.97 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

9 the United States that was made—

10 (1) after December 31, 1992, and

11 (2) before the date which is 15 days after the

12 date of the enactment of this Act,

13 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry

14 occurred on or after the date that is 15 days after the

15 date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-50422

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SAUL VALENZUELA-URIAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. P-00-CR-385-ALL-F

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

February 21, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Saul Valenzuela-Urias appeals the 71-month term of

imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction of

being found in the United States after deportation in violation

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Valenzuela-Urias complains that his sentence

was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based

on his prior deportation following an aggravated felony

conviction. Valenzuela-Urias argues that the sentencing

provision violates the Due Process Clause because it permitted

the sentencing judge to find, under a preponderance of the
No. 01-50422 

-2-

evidence standard, a fact which increased the statutory maximum

sentence to which he otherwise would have been exposed. 

Valenzuela-Urias thus contends that his sentence is invalid and

argues that it should not exceed the two-year maximum term of

imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Valenzuela-Urias

acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme

Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S.

224 (1998), but seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court

review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530

U.S. 466 (2000). 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). ValenzuelaUrias’s argument is foreclosed. The judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an

appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

 AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### Richard HIGGINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-766.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 22, 1972.

Appeal from Court of Record, Brevard County; A. J. Hoseman, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.