alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    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 the Interior

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [RR04073000/XXXR4081X3/RX.05940913.7000000]

# AGENCY:

Office of the Secretary, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice to reopen a call for nominations.

# SUMMARY:

                        A request for nominations was published by the Department of the Interior in the                         **Federal Register**                         on June 6, 2018, for specific positions on the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) Federal advisory committee. The nomination period ended on July 6, 2018. This notice reopens the nomination period for another 30 days.                    

# DATES:

The nomination period for the notice published on June 6, 2018, at 83 FR 26304, is reopened. Nominations for the vacant positions are due August 20, 2018.

# ADDRESSES:

                        Send nomination packages to Brent Rhees, Regional Director, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 125 S State Street, Room 8100, Salt Lake City, UT 84138, or via email to                         *brhees@usbr.gov.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Katrina Grantz, Chief, Adaptive Management Work Group, Environmental Resources Division, at (801) 524-3635, fax: 801-524-5499, or by email at                         *kgrantz@usbr.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

*Nomination Process:*                     Nominations should include a resume that provides an adequate description of the nominee's qualifications, particularly information that will enable the Department of the Interior to evaluate the nominee's potential to meet the membership requirements of the AMWG and permit the Department of the Interior to contact a potential member. The                     *Membership Criteria*                     section in the notice published on June 6, 2018 (83 FR 26304) provides specific information to be included in nomination packages.                

Dated: July 13, 2018.

 Ryan K. Zinke,

 Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2018-15595 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4332-90-P
#### Arthur HAMILTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-446.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 8, 1970.

Arthur Hamilton, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of his appeal, and appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
Exhibit 10.39


 


AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment (this
“Amendment”) dated as of the 17th day of March, 2021 amends the Employment Agreement, dated July
31, 2018, as amended (the “Agreement”), by and between Adial Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”),
and William B. Stilley, III (“Executive”). Capitalized terms used herein without definition shall have the meanings
assigned in the Agreement.  


 


WHEREAS, Executive
was retained under the Employment Agreement by the Corporation to serve as its Chief Executive Officer; and


 


WHEREAS, in
recognition of the hard work and performance by Executive, the Corporation desires to amend the Employment Agreement.


 


NOW THEREFORE,
for the mutual promises contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is
hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows:


 


1. Amendment.
Section 3.1 of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


 


“3.1Base
Salary. Effective February 12, 2021, the Executive shall receive a base salary per annum during the Term of Employment
of Four Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($410,000), payable in cash in accordance with the Company’s normal payroll practices
as in effect from time to time. During the Term of Employment, the Board may periodically review the Executive’s base salary
and the Board (excluding the Executive) may, in its sole discretion, set such base salary to an amount it determines to be appropriate,
provided, however, that any reduction will qualify as Good Reason under Section 1.11. The Executive’s base salary, as may
be in effect from time to time, is referred to herein as “Base Salary.”


 


2. No Other Amendments;
Confirmation. All other terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. The Agreement, as amended by this
Amendment, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter thereof.


 


3. Counterparts.
This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but both of which together
shall constitute one and the same instrument.


 


4. Choice of
Law. This Amendment shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Delaware without
regard to its conflict of laws principles.


 


[Signature page follows]


 




     


     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first written above.


 


	 	Company:
	 	 
	 	ADIAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
	 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Joseph Truluck
	 	Name:	Joseph Truluck
	 	Title:	Chief Financial Officer
	 	 
	 	Executive: 
	 	 
	 	/s/ William B. Stilley, III
	 	WILLIAM B. STILLEY, III
251 La. 72

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Clarence Victor RHODES.

No. 48938.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 20, 1967.

In re: Clarence Victor Rhodes applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition and stay order.

The application is denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.
6546 Woodland Oaks Dr.

Magnolia, TX 77354

(832) 212-6011

ST10 Personal Ground Station

Operating System AndroidTM

Number of Channels 10

Control Transmission Distance/Range (Optimum Conditions) FCC Compliance: Up to 800m 

(2624.67 ft) CE Compliance: Up to 400m (1312.34 ft)

Robust Radio Control Modulation Yuneec Protocol

Video link Frequency Band 5.8GHz

Video Transmission Distance/Range (Optimum Conditions) FCC Compliance: Up to 600m 

(1968.5 ft) CE Compliance: Up to 300m (984.252 ft)

Flight Systems Telemetry Data On Screen Display (OSD) Yes

LED Backlit LCD Screen Capacitive Multi-Touch 4.5”

Tactile (Vibrating) and Audible Feedback Yes

Built-In LiPo Battery Voltage / Capacity 3.6V/5200mAh 18.72Wh

Charger Auto-Charge Mode via Micro-B USB Cable with AC to 5V DC USB Power Supply 

(Included)
#### Lorie W. MOORE, Appellant, v. The MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, a foreign corporation, Appellee.

No. 72-237.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 27, 1972.

Appeal quashed.
#### Bill Glen DAWSON v. William E. “Bill” DAVIS as Sheriff of Escambia County.

No. 38732.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 1969.

Habeas corpus denied without opinion.
#### Ellis EDMOND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1350.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

March 18, 1968.

Walter N. Colbath, Jr., Public Defender, and John R. Young, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Fred T. Gallagher, Asst. Atty. Gen., Vero Beach, for appellee.

BARNS, PAUL D., Associate Judge.

After a defendant has been stopped for the violation of a traffic regulation at 4 A.M. and does not have a driver’s permit, and he tells the officer that the car is borrowed from a friend in Miami (over sixty miles away), but only gives his friend’s name as “Harry” and the officer observes a crowbar and screwdriver protruding from under the front seat and a radio with store tag on the back seat with the aid of a flashlight shined through the glass windows of the car, he has sufficient probable cause to make a thorough search of the automobile after arrest for the traffic violation and failure to produce a driver’s permit. Affirmed on authority of Gispert v. State, Fla.App.1960, 118 So.2d 596.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, C. J., and REED, J., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1


                             NORDSTROM CREDIT, INC.
                 Computation of Ratio of Earnings Available for
                         Fixed Charges to Fixed Charges
                             (Dollars in thousands)



<Table>
<Caption>
YEAR ENDED JANUARY 31,              2004           2003           2002           2001           2000
----------------------           ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------
<S>                              <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
Earnings before
     income taxes                $   71,738     $   75,306     $   23,429     $   15,265     $   34,676

Fixed charges
  (interest cost)                    22,022         23,786         25,012         29,339         27,208
                                 ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------
Earnings available for
  fixed charges                  $   93,760     $   99,092     $   48,441     $   44,604     $   61,884
                                 ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========
RATIO OF EARNINGS AVAILABLE
  FOR FIXED CHARGES TO FIXED
  CHARGES                              4.26           4.17           1.94           1.52           2.27
                                 ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========
</Table>
#### James H. PRICE and James H. Price & Co., Inc., a dissolved Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Voyle C. JOHNSON, Appellee.

No. 69-545.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Oct. 7, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 31, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Kenneth L. GRILL, Petitioner, v. Donald S. GENUNG, Sheriff, Respondent.

No. 73-1076.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 10, 1974.

Habeas corpus denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          11,833
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,570
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,109
<PP&E>                                          10,695
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 142,791
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,268
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           894
<OTHER-SE>                                     122,046
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   142,791
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                89,226
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   92,871
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 213
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,645)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (664)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,981)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,981)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.33)
        

</TABLE>
#### SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY, a Maine Corporation, Appellant, v. Ada SMITH, Appellee.

No. N-476.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 20, 1971.

Rehearing Denied June 22, 1971.

Clayton, Duncan, Johnston, Clayton, Quincey, Ireland & Felder, Gainesville, for appellant.

Green, Simmons & Green, Ocala, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the final judgment of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS, J., and MELVIN, WOODROW M., Associate Judge, concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2037

NANCY J. HALSTEAD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

KING GEORGE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief

District Judge. (CA-96-914-A)

Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 3, 1996

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nancy J. Halstead, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing

without prejudice her civil complaint for lack of jurisdiction. We

have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Halstead v. King George County Public Schools, No.

CA-96-914-A (E.D. Va. June 24, 1996). 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
EXHIBIT 31.3

CERTIFICATION

I, Allen E. Larson, certify that:

1.
        I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Minn Dak Farmers Cooperative;


2
        Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;


3.
        Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;


4.
        The Companys other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and Rule 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:


a)
        designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;


b)
        evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation.


c)
        disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Companys most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and


5.
        The Companys other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Companys board of directors:


a)
        all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and


b)
        any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal control over financial reporting.


Date:
        November 27, 2006
        
        
        /s/  Allen E. LarsonController and Chief Accounting Officer


---
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Frank Lewis CAIN and Joy Lynn Cain, Appellees.

No. 72-656.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 22, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 22, 1973.

*549Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.

Stuart W. Umbarger, of Law Offices of H. Lee Moffitt, Tampa, for appellees.

MANN, Judge.

Evidence was suppressed because the search warrant was “issued in blank in violation of Section 933.05, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.” The affidavit alleges observation, on May 17, 1972, of marijuana growing on the defendants’ premises, and was executed May 17, 1972. The warrant was served on May 17, 1972. Thus the sentence, “WITNESS my hand and seal this_day of_, A.D., 19_” indicates merely a failure to fill in a blank. Surrounding circumstances make it clear that all pertinent actions in this case occurred on May 17. The defect is merely technical and not prejudicial. While the civil rights of persons must be scrupulously respected, mere technicality not arguably prejudicial should not invalidate the warrant where common sense does not allow the inference that the warrant was signed on any date other than May 17, 1972.1 In Jackson v. State,2 the warrant purported to allow the search of “the dwelling house of Freddie Jenkins in the county aforesaid,” plainly a failure particularly to describe the premises to be searched. The appellee states that the purpose of requiring a date on the warrant is to insure that it is returned within ten days of issuance.3

In Johnson v. State,4 the Supreme Court of Mississippi held a nullity a warrant issued the “12th day of Johnson, 194_,” despite the trial judge’s permitting amendment later. The opinion does not state facts showing whether the omission might have been prejudicial. The question appears to be novel in Florida. We adhere to the view expressed in other jurisdictions 5 that the omission, if indisputably supplied by other dates in the documents and not prejudicial, is insufficient ground for suppressing evidence seized.

Other objections raised are open for consideration upon remand. The order suppressing is

Vacated and remanded for further proceedings.

LILES, Acting C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.

1

. IVe differentiated technical deficiency from prejudicial error in State v. Holmes, Fla.App.2d 1971, 256 So.2d 32, and in Nell v. State, Fla.App.2d 1972, 266 So.2d 404.

2

. 1924, 87 Fla. 262, 99 So. 548.

3

. Fla.Stat. § 933.05 (1971), F.S.A.

4

. 1947. 202 Miss. 233, 31 So.2d 127.

5

. Bell v. State, 1952, 200 Md. 223, 88 A.2d 567; Bowers v. State, 1939, 136 Tex.Cr.R. 387, 125 S.W.2d 555; Merritt v. State, 1970, 121 Ga.App. 832, 175 S.E.2d 890; State v. Manuel, Okl.Crim.App.1953, 255 P.2d 289; United States v. Hertel Athletic and Social Club, W.D.N.Y.1928, 25 F.2d 872.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         358,630
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,003
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,965)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         304,133
<DEPRECIATION>                               (304,133)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 379,162
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     356,210
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   379,162
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               869,669
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               281,322
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                588,347
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            588,347
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   588,347
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    21.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    21.91


</TABLE>