alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### FONTAINEBLEAU HOTEL, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. David WALTERS and Arthur Courshon, Appellees.

No. 69-580.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 3, 1971.

Shalle Stephen Fine, Miami, for appellant.

Walters, Moore & Costanzo and S. Harvey Ziegler, Miami, for David Walters.

Ely R. Katz and Michael H. Salmon, Miami Beach, for Arthur Courshon.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ-

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on February 17, 1970 (Fla.App., 231 So.2d 240) affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court for Dade County, in the above styled cause; and

Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed March 24, 1971, Fla., 246 So.2d 563, and mandate dated April 26, 1971, quashed this court’s judgment with directions to reverse the judgment of the trial court and for further proceedings not inconsistent with the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida;

Now, therefore, it is ordered that the mandate of this court heretofore issued in this cause on March 5, 1970 is withdrawn, the opinion and judgment of this court filed in this cause on February 17, 1970 is vacated, the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court and the judgment of the circuit court appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the circuit court (Rule 3.16(b) Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A.). '
#### SANFORD INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. James DAVITT et al., Respondents.

No. 40429.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 15, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 15, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### BRACKIN v. BRACKIN.

No. 35997.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1967.

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1967.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 190 So.2d 816.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-392]
 ACTION: Notice of registration.
 SUMMARY: Registrants listed below have applied for and been granted registration by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as importers of various classes of schedule I or II controlled substances.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The companies listed below applied to be registered as importers of various basic classes of controlled substances. Information on previously published notices is listed in the table below. No comments or objections were submitted and no requests for hearing were submitted for these notices. Company
FR Docket
PublishedNovitium Pharma, LLC
83 FR 13520
March 29, 2018.Rhodes Technologies
83 FR 22517
May 15, 2018.Xcelience
83 FR 22519
May 15, 2018.
 The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the registration of the listed registrants to import the applicable basic classes of schedule I or II controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated each company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing each company's physical security systems, verifying each company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing each company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the DEA has granted a registration as an importer for schedule I or II controlled substances to the above listed companies. Dated: July 12, 2018. John J. Martin, Assistant Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2018-15666 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. the MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING COMPANY, Relator, v. The Honorable William Lamar ROSE, Court of Record Judge, Respondent.

No. 72-1033.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 18, 1972.

Daniel P. S. Paul and John-Edward Alley of Paul & Thomson, Miami, for petitioner.

William Lamar Rose, pro se.

Joseph P. D’Alessandro, State’s Atty., Fort Myers, for respondent.

Morton A. Goldberg, Fort Myers, for defendant David Hedden.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on a Suggestion for Writ of Prohibition in which the relator is seeking to prohibit enforcement of a pretrial order in a murder case (State of Florida v. David Hedden, Case No. F 72-281, Court of Record, Lee County) restricting communications media in their reports of the trial. The relator makes no objections to those portions of the order prohibiting photographs within the area described but objects solely to that portion of the order prohibiting it *484from publishing any information about the case except testimony presented in open court, including hearings in chambers. To the extent that the order operates as a prior restraint upon constitutionally privileged publication or communication it is invalid. The trial judge has ample power to insure a fair trial for Hedden without suppressing relator’s first amendment rights; for example the jury has been sequestered and other procedural safeguards have been taken.

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4.5 (g), F.A.R., 32 F.S.A., and rather than proceeding in prohibition, the order under attack is hereby stayed. See, New York Times Co. v. U. S., 1971, 403 U.S. 713, 91 S.Ct. 2140, 29 L.Ed.2d 822, and cases therein cited.
Exhibit 99.9

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

AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Barrick Gold Corporation (the Company) is filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, its annual report on
Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 (the Report).

I, Kelvin P.M. Dushnisky, Co-President of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | a) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 27, 2015



|                          |  |                      
|------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|/s/ Kelvin P.M. Dushnisky
|Name:                     |  | Kelvin P.M. Dushnisky
|Title:                    |  | Co-President
Exhibit 11.1



UNITIL CORPORATION



COMPUTATION IN SUPPORT OF EARNINGS PER SHARE



|                                                       |  |                         |       |      |   |       |  |   |      
|------------------------------------------------------ |  | ----------------------- | ----- | ---- | - | ----- |  | - | -----
|                                                       |  | Year Ended December 31,
|                                                       |  | 2005                    |       | 2004 |   | 2003 
|EARNINGS PER SHARE (000s, except per share data)      |  |                         |       |      |   |       |  |   |      
|Net Income                                             |  | $                       | 8,553 |      | $ | 8,226 |  | $ | 7,958
|Less: Dividend Requirements on Preferred Stock         |  |                         | 156   |      |   | 215   |  |   | 236  
|                                                       |  |                         |       |      |   |       |  |   |      
|Net Income Applicable to Common Stock                  |  | $                       | 8,397 |      | $ | 8,011 |  | $ | 7,722
|                                                       |  |                         |       |      |   |       |  |   |      
|Average Number of Common Shares Outstanding - Basic    |  |                         | 5,551 |      |   | 5,509 |  |   | 4,878
|                                                       |  |                         |      
|Dilutive Effect of Stock Options* and Restricted Stock |  |                         | 17    |      |   | 16    |  |   | 18   
|                                                       |  |                         |      
|Average Number of Common Shares Outstanding - Diluted  |  |                         | 5,568 |      |   | 5,525 |  |   | 4,896
|                                                       |  |                         |      
|Earnings Per Share - Basic                             |  | $                       | 1.51  |      | $ | 1.45  |  | $ | 1.58 
|                                                       |  |                         |      
|Earnings Per Share - Diluted                           |  | $                       | 1.51  |      | $ | 1.45  |  | $ | 1.58 



|* | Assumes all options were converted to common shares per SFAS 128.
|- | -----------------------------------------------------------------
Srna eee ES ae ro re

| orl B rervuilt (a DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE—BUREAU OF THE CENSUS apm5°  enmabo-2f
Sue af Tnecrperwted piace mee 14a ty a a os SIXTEENTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES: 1940

=x
Township of other . =o 43 *
comer Ades hae ev See Sy Laabchee Stine Sle meet ten z peeeiereree erent Eeemesetes to é oo.

ara ae zfo—C-

tocarvos | wocurmoue Data ‘ . YEARS CLD AND TER EMYLOTMENT eTATOS

lage Kivmey, Cirzabath

Aagerlosy fmms © : Wavtdbastar [apes ly ‘ | > ba SITE
Master mad ‘wa. i pt <7 ramersy ea

—p-Sae Co ! 44m the 4 ; } fe onto hae —— Steel fillag.
2 Ap aaa arte! ae

—, €h rh rd ~ Me |
4 tabs a New Eni o jk Me | # } Wixavel

erie Be f pel) Hehe te ie paste en OP ee =| | Manicomtas |Peveate Home
4, Mega | |

=

'
|
|
|

UNOS Wabag FedT
Buginect a tnegemend BA)

3

Same lens
\tlerashe | Same bene -
bee heg as Sa wae brine |
Kaeovtia [71] |betvert Vague Vasehe ga he

212 hens [Sater bone
ie lhe Sey,
Ar tedets!

= Sj Wabe lene P
~, Wavesrvet

argreiss Iramee
anaes; Iueph P

sFer

Ce lees,

Génever q
yas ne erhad et titeHome fis
ee tua

Fe

4 ore
= Saree 5/%
Swe estore an’
a
~1 Kathleen
Space fi

$=

c

SPREE RIS

wy
e

ais]

‘ES

TEENS TAM ELE Mane PETE TRS

eclee ce cele "lez cee

[kis

aa 4 ea tet Ae | 1200 Yea
[terctany rset Fan Ing } G00 Ves

ardour viuabe Fytete ro | ee
o hs

Haw, Loretta
Ainlexete, Margaret | C
Duwn, & faabeth®
<
Ty warm sy boris d
| ——, Ste pien
Dery mas, Dawid Hea
— , kathan«« ®| wice

ee

FES

el Verne Vertdleeday kasYo ree hhe| he Chaxgenv Prstehomw Po ier Yes
Pustaud ea led Verve WeeeeL bert 1. | 9 uel keke! #

¥

fe clefee

&

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here. ie Frathes E

Deane C, Son fetal 1 70S Belt | ot} | ; |
“fone pony Head | PM |W) 6 wy ote hee York | a a | fe 7) {9

essiter, Devry OD | ce | [EM |) wy [Wee-2l Tha Sens
ml Sen bl waa $s Cs] cou Uo) ut te) S

FOR PERSONS OF ALL AGES FOR PERSONS 14 TEARS OLD AND ores ‘Sri eees|

= Clinton

Se) = ie om TM cwras ecorranee, meseres

seeerseetene t=

y
Picmse ha Rese mae Made censatty Mi pas charade,
Ty mans Ky ote ou | Pelany \haw Yor

om cose oe ance

ni
r

Serpe erent ete cedees Ge ecg center gs Ges reas eeeggeese tees Fe pe eee see Gas eee the ee ee a
<PAGE>
 
                                 EXHIBIT 23.1
                                 ------------

     Consent of Deloitte & Touche LLP, independent public auditors.


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

Board of Directors and Stockholders
Bush Industries, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.'s 33-
77820, 33-77814, 33-69846, 33-69848, 33-66540, 33-66542, 33-63723, 333-02617,
333-38017 and 333-50831 of Bush Industries, Inc. on Form S-8 and 333-14819 and
333-09291 of Bush Industries, Inc. on Form S-3 of our report dated February 12,
1999, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bush Industries, Inc. for
the year ended January 2, 1999.

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Buffalo, New York

March 18, 1999
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7053

VISTON SHYROCK MARTIN,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

SERGEANT HATFIELD; T. LOWE, IHO; SERGEANT OWENS; RANDY C. 

MATHENA, Warden,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior 

District Judge. (7:10-cv-00262-jlk-mfu)

Submitted: October 19, 2010 Decided: October 28, 2010

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Viston Shyrock Martin, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Viston Shyrock Martin appeals the district court’s 

order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint without 

prejudice as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2006). We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Martin v. Hatfield, No. 7:10-cv-00262-jlk-mfu (W.D. Va. 

July 23, 2010). 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
#### GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hypolite SPEYRER, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 3113.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

June 18, 1970.

Bailey & Mouton, by Wm. C. Hollier, Lafayette, for plaintiff-appellant.

Robert Brinkman, Opelousas, for defendant-appellee.

Before FRUGÉ, HOOD, and MILLER, JJ-

FRUGÉ, Judge.

The issues in this suit are identical to those in Gulf States Utilities Company v. Robin et al., 237 So.2d 422, a companion appeal rendered by us this date. For the reasons stated in the companion appeal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in favor of Hypolite Speyrer, defendant-appellee, at the plaintiff-appellant’s cost.

Affirmed.
Water Quality Standards Regulatory Revisions Rulemaking

MEMORANDUM TO RECORD SUBJECT: Meeting with ACWA’s Monitoring, Standards & Assessment Committee DATE: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 TIME: 2:30 – 4:30 PM
Invitees: EPA – Sara Hisel-McCoy, Grace Robiou, Shari Barash, Manjali Vlcan, Janita Aguirre ACWA/States – Susan Kirsch; Melissa Mccoy; Alex Barron, Andrea Matzke, Brock Tabor, Cheri Niemi, Connie Brower, Connie Carey, Daryll Joyner, David Chestnut, Derek Smithee, Eric Urban, Julia Anastasio, Ken Weaver, Dan Peckham, Kevin Coyne, Lindsay Patterson, Martha Clark Mettler, Meghan Bell, Nancy Sonafrank, Roop Guha, Sandy Stephens, Shivi Selvaratnam, Susanne Meidel, Slyvia Heaton, Michelle Moses, Kim Senno, Susan Braley, Dan Weaver, Jeremy Smith, Jason Childress Summary of Meeting: Participants provided a report out and had discussion of the State-EPA Roundtable effort.
#### Stanley Warren ROBINSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 67-687.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

July 16, 1968.

Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender, and Jeffrey Michael Cohen, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty Gen., and Arden M. Siegendorf, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: McGary v. Wainwright, 375 F.2d 118 (5th cir. 1967); Hamilton v. State, Fla.App.1966, 186 So.2d 316.
Argued November 19. 1969,

affirmed January 15, 1970

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*THOMAS CANTRELL, *Appellan*t.

No. 12-487

463 P.2d 593

*Gary D. Babcock,*Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

*G. Dwyer Wilson,*Deputy District Attorney, Hillsboro, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Ray Robinett, District Attorney, Hillsboro. ...

*455LANGTRY, J.

Defendant appeals from a conviction under ORS 168.255 .of assault and battery by means of force likely to produce great-t)odily injury. He was. indicted with David L, . Johnson, $s, a result of a tavern altercation which started when the barmaid in the tavern refused service to defendant and Johnson, who had come into the tavern together. A Mr. Roberts was the 'only other patron in the bar besides the barmaid when Johnson and defendant entered. Some words passed between the barmaid and defendant, after which defendant and Johnson started to leave.

There was testimony from which the jury could believe the following: that Roberts made a remark about orange juice; that defendant walked up to him demanding to know what he had said and then struck Roberts. Roberts fought back and was struck several times over the head by Johnson with a beer mug. Johnson had attacked Roberts from the rear. When the mug broke on Roberts’ head, Johnson left the tavern and Roberts continued to fight with defendant. Defendant pulled a rat-tailed comb from his pocket which he drove up Roberts’ nose, causing a serious head injury. The barmaid, who was attempting to get outside to telephone police and get the license number of the auto defendant and Johnson arrived in, was thrown aside by defendant who then fled.

Defendant assigns as error the court’s jury instruction that he could be held guilty as an accomplice with Johnson. Defendant asserts there was insufficient proof of concerted action.

> “* * * [I]t is the ‘general rule that the least degree of concert or collusion between the parties to an illegal transaction makes the act of *456one of them the act of all * * *.’ ” *State v. Fichter,*226 Or 526, 532, 360 P2d 278 (1961).

The jury conld have believed the above facts from the evidence, so it is obvious that there was evidence of Johnson’s and defendant’s acting in concert with one another.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 10.44

      

      

      FIRST AMENDMENT TO OPTION AND LICENSE AGREEMENT

      

      

      This First Amendment to Option and License Agreement (the “Amendment”), effective as of July 31, 2022 (the “First Amendment
          Effective Date”) by and between GigaGen, Inc., a Delaware corporation having a place of business at 1 Tower Place, Suite 750, South San Francisco, CA 94080 (“GigaGen”) and Kineta, Inc., a Washington
        corporation having a place of business at 219 Terry Avenue North, Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98109 (“Kineta”), amends that certain Option and License Agreement, dated June 9, 2021 by and between GigaGen and
        Kineta (the “Agreement”).  Each of GigaGen and Kineta shall be referred to herein individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties”. 






        Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Agreement.

      

      

      NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, the Parties hereby agree as follows:

      

      

      1.

      Section 1.49 of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting in its entirety and replacing it with the following:

      

      

      “Option Term” means the period commencing on the Effective Date and ending on December 31, 2022.

      

      

      2.

      Except as set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

      

      

      3.

      This Amendment may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original, with the same effect as if the signatures were upon the same instrument.

      

      

      [signature page follows]

      
        
          


      

      

      

       

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, duly authorized representatives of the Parties have duly executed this Amendment as of the First Amendment Effective Date.

      

      	
              GIGAGEN, INC.

            	 	
              KINETA, INC.

            
	 	

            	 	 	

            
	
              Signature:

            	
              /s/ Carter Keller

            	 	
              Signature:

            	
              /s/ Craig W. Philips

            
	 	

            	 	 	

            
	
              Name:

            	
              Carter Keller

            	 	
              Name:

            	
              Craig W. Philips

            
	 	

            	 	 	

            
	
              Title:

            	
              CEO

            	 	
              Title:

            	
              President, KINETA INC

            
	 	

            	 	 	

            
	
              Date:

            	
              8/4/2022

            	 	
              Date:

            	
              8/5/2022
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CITADEL COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED FOR THE YEAR
ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                          15,100
<SECURITIES>                                 1,250,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,602,422
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,794,628
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,724,093
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,680,965
<BONDS>                                      1,770,905
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          5
<COMMON>                                       165,020
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,107,198
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,724,093
<SALES>                                      5,326,192
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,326,192
<CGS>                                          304,436
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,984,113
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             253,557
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,515,607)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,515,607)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,515,607)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.56)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
### FDMS Do **cket No. FAA -**  **2012 -**  **0040 Contacts.**  With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 6/2/11 Regional Airline Association Connie Ar nold 6/2/11

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 6/2/11 AT A Joe White 6/2/11