alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued April 1 8 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 13 - 0026 3 - CV

——————————— IN RE JOSEPH R. WILLIE , II, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Joseph R. Willie , has filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s March 27, 2013 order denying his no

- evidence summary - judgment motion
. 1 See T EX . R. C IV . P. 166a(i).

1 The underl y ing case is Commission for Lawyer Discipline v. Willie , No. 2007

- 69255 , in the 133rd District Court of Harris County, Texas , the Honorable Lena Levario presiding via special appointment
.2 Applicable Law T he denial of a no

- evidence summary - judgment motion is no more reviewable by appeal or mandamus than the denial of a matter
- of

- law summary judgment motion. T EX . R. C IV . P. 166a cmt. The denial of a no

- evidence summary - judgment motion should be treated the same as the denial of a summary judgment m otion made under rule 166a(c)
. In re R.W. , 129 S.W.3d 732, 744 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2004, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction to review the trial court’s denial of Willie’s no

- evidence summary

- judgment motion. Conclusion We deny the petition and a ll pending motion s . PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Massengale.
EX-10.13



 [*] = Certain confidential information contained in this document, marked by brackets, has been omitted and
filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 406 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. 
 Exhibit
10.13 
 Assignment of Agreement 

A Technology Transfer and Clinical Supply Agreement 

dated October 23, 2012 (Contract Number: BI: 63790), including all attachments, 

amendments and addendums, if any 

(the “AGREEMENT”) 
 has
been concluded between 
 Versartis, Inc. 

275 Shoreline Drive 
 Suite 450 

Redwood Shores, CA USA 94065 

(“CUSTOMER”) 
 on the one hand 

and 
 Boehringer Ingelheim RCV
GmbH & Co KG 
 [*] 

(“BI RCV”) 
 on the other hand. 

BI RCV herewith gives notice to CUSTOMER that the AGREEMENT with all rights and obligations will be assigned from BI RCV to its affiliate Boehringer
Ingelheim Biopharma-ceuticals GmbH, Binger Straße 173, 55216 Ingelheim/Rhein, GERMANY, with effect from January 1st, 2014. 

Boehringer Ingelheim Biopharmaceuticals GmbH accepts this transfer of the AGREEMENT with all rights and obligations resulting therefrom and consequently shall
adopt BI RCV’s contractual position as per January 1st, 2014. BI RCV shall hereby be released from all rights and obligations of the AGREEMENT which occur on or after January 1st,
2014. 
 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Quality Agreement for the respective project or product concluded between CUSTOMER and BI RCV will remain
unaffected and BI RCV shall continue to assume all rights and obligations related to it. 
 CUSTOMER supplied materials (e.g. [*] etc.) shall continue to be
delivered directly to BI RCV. 

  
 Page 1 of 2 









					
	Vienna, 12.12.2013	 		 	
	 Boehringer Ingelheim RCV GmbH & Co KG

ppa.
	 		 	i. V.
			
	 [*]
	 		 	 [*]

	 [*] 
	 		 	 [*] 


 We hereby confirm and agree to the assignment of the AGREEMENT to Boehringer Ingelheim Biopharmaceuticals GmbH 

 

					
	Ingelheim,	 		 	
	 Boehringer Ingelheim Biopharmaceuticals GmbH

ppa.
	 		 	ppa.
			
	 [*]
	 		 	 [*]

	 [*] 
	 		 	 [*] 


  

					
			
	Acknowleged:	 		 	

  

	
	Redwood Shores,
	Versartis, Inc
	
	 /s/ Jeffrey L. Cleland

	Name:    Jeffrey L. Cleland
	Title:      CEO

 [*] = Certain confidential information contained in this document, marked by brackets, has been omitted and filed
separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 406 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. 

  
 Page 2 of 2
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                          | Summit Hotel OP, LP                                                                                |
|-------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                          | By: Summit Hotel GP, LLC, its general partner                                                      |
|                          | By: Summit Hotel Properties, Inc., its sole member                                                 |
|                          |                                                                                               |
| Date:  May 16, 2011 | By:   /s/  Stuart J. Becker                                               |
|                          | Stuart J. BeckerExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) |
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3881

To amend the Small Business Act to eliminate restrictions on providing

financial assistance to small business concerns engaged in media-related

industries.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 23, 1994

Mr. DUNCAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Small Business

A BILL

To amend the Small Business Act to eliminate restrictions

on providing financial assistance to small business concerns engaged in media-related industries.

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

3 SECTION 1. SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS ENGAGED IN

4 MEDIA-RELATED INDUSTRIES.

5 (a) ELIGIBILITY FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.—Sec6 tion 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632) is

7 amended by adding at the end the following new sub8 section:
2

•HR 3881 IH

1 ‘‘(n) MEDIA-RELATED CONCERNS.—For purposes of

2 this Act, a small business concern shall not be considered

3 ineligible for financial assistance, including loans under

4 section 7(a), solely on the basis that the concern is en5 gaged in a broadcast, print, or other media-related indus6 try.’’.

7 (b) REPEAL OF OPINION MOLDER RULE.—Not later

8 than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,

9 the Administrator of the Small Business Administration

10 shall—

11 (1) issue regulations to repeal section 120.101–

12 2(b) of title 13, Code of Federal Regulations; and

13 (2) take such other actions as may be necessary

14 to carry out the amendment made by subsection (a).

Æ
#### JERSEY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. Herbert Stanley CUTTRISS, Appellee.

Nos. 68-625—68-627.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

March 11, 1969.

William R. Alvin, Miami, for appellant.

Fowler, White, Collins, Gillen, Humkey & Trenam, Miami, for appellee.

Richard A. Sicking, Miami, for amicus curiae Wallace Bray, Harold E. Lewis, and John L. Hickey.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The sole question on this appeal is whether a compensation carrier has the exclusive right, in the second year after the accrual of a cause of action, to institute an action against a third party tort feasor pursuant to § 440.39, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

We reject this argument and hold that in the second year the injured employee and the carrier have concurrent rights against a third party tort feasor. But, the right to proceed against the tort feasor is limited to the one who files his cause of action first. Home Indemnity Company v. McAdams, Fla. App. 1962, 139 So.2d 433; Zurich Insurance Company v. Renton, Fla. App. 1966, 189 So.2d 492.

Therefore, we find no error in the trial court’s orders here under review.

Affirmed.
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________
No. 22

- 13467
Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus RICCI LAMONT DENNARD,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:21

- cr

- 00026

- LAG

- TQL

- 1

____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-13467 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 02/23/2024 Page: 1 of 22 Opinion of the Court 22

- 13467

Before W ILSON , B RASHER , and A BUDU , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: John Price, appointed counsel for Ricci Dennard in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our ind ependent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED , and D ennard’s conviction and sentence

are AFFIRMED

. USCA11 Case: 22-13467 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 02/23/2024 Page: 2 of 2
#### Roy JOHNSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-1211.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 3, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Haskell M. LIBERMAN, Appellant, v. GENERAL HOTEL & RESTAURANT SUPPLY CORP., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-182.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 13, 1971.

Rehearing Denied May 26, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
FIRST AMENDMENT TO


RCS CAPITAL CORPORATION


EQUITY PLAN


 


WHEREAS, RCS Capital Corporation
(the “Company”) maintains the RCS Capital Corporation Equity Plan (the “Plan”);


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 9(d)(ii)
of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) may at any time and from time to time amend
the Plan, in whole or in part; and


 


WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend
the Plan as set forth herein;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Section
9(d)(ii) of the Plan, effective as of June 5, 2013, Section 5(a) of the Plan is hereby amended to replace each reference therein
to “275,000 shares” to read “250,000 shares”.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board has approved
the amendment to the Plan as set forth herein and authorized the undersigned officer of the Company to execute this amendment and
the undersigned has caused this amendment to be executed this 5th day of June, 2013.


 


 


RCS CAPITAL CORPORATION


 


 


By: /s/ William M Kahane_________________




Name: William M Kahane


Title: CEO and Director
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1
 
                   SUBSIDIARIES OF BIG FLOWER HOLDINGS, INC.
 
<TABLE>
<S><C>
Big Flower Press Holdings, Inc.
  Treasure Chest Advertising Company, Inc.
    Treasure Chest Advertising Company of New York, Inc.
    Treasure Chest Advertising Holding Company of Texas, Inc.
      Treasure Chest Advertising Company of Texas, Inc.
      Treasure Chest Advertising Company of Nevada, Inc.
    BFP Receivables Corporation
    PrintCo., Inc.
    BF Aviation Corp.
    Levelco 84, a California Limited Partnership
  Webcraft, Inc.
    Webtech Holdings, Inc.
      Webcraft Investors, Inc.
      Webcraft Midwest, Inc.
    Webcraft Chemicals, Inc. (d/b/a Craig Adhesives & Coatings Co.)
    KSS Transportation Corporation
    Scanforms, Inc.
    Impco Enterprises, Inc.
  Big Flower Digital Services, Inc.
    Laser Tech Color, Inc.
      Pacific Color Connection, Inc.
      DCS, Incorporated
      Gamma One, Inc.
      Big Flower Digital Services Limited
        Troypeak Limited
        Pismo Limited
    Columbine JDS Systems, Inc.
      Columbine Systems, Inc.
      Columbine Cable Systems, Inc.
      JDS Systems, Inc.
      Columbine JDS ABU, Inc.
      Broadcast Systems Software Limited
        Broadcast Systems Software Pty Limited
  Big Flower Limited
    Olwen Direct Mail Limited
      Olwen Data Management Limited
      Olwen Graphic Services Limited
      Olwen Envelopes Limited
      Olwen Press Limited
      Olwen International Direct Mail, Inc.
      Olwen Mailing Services Limited
Big Flower Trust I
</TABLE>
# C_2015071EN.01000101.xml

| 27.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/1

---

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 October 2014 to 31 October 2014

(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1))

1

(2015/C 071/01)

—   Modification of a marketing authorisation (Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council): Accepted

Modification of a marketing authorisation

Accepted

| Date of the decision | Name of the medicinal product | Holder of the marketing authorisation | Number of the entry in the Community Register | Date of notification |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 15.10.2014 | Advagraf | Astellas Pharma Europe B.V. Sylviusweg 62, NL-2333 BE Leiden, Nederland | EU/1/07/387 | 17.10.2014 |
| 30.10.2014 | JETREA | ThromboGenics NV Gaston Geenslaan 1, B-3001 Leuven, België | EU/1/13/819 | 3.11.2014 |
| 30.10.2014 | NexoBrid | MediWound Germany GmbH Eisenstr. 5, D-65428 Ruesselsheim, Deutschland | EU/1/12/803 | 3.11.2014 |

Date of the decision

Name of the medicinal product

Holder of the marketing authorisation

Number of the entry in the Community Register

Date of notification

15.10.2014

Advagraf

Astellas Pharma Europe B.V. Sylviusweg 62, NL-2333 BE Leiden, Nederland

EU/1/07/387

17.10.2014

30.10.2014

JETREA

ThromboGenics NV Gaston Geenslaan 1, B-3001 Leuven, België

EU/1/13/819

3.11.2014

30.10.2014

NexoBrid

MediWound Germany GmbH Eisenstr. 5, D-65428 Ruesselsheim, Deutschland

EU/1/12/803

3.11.2014

Anyone wishing to consult the public assessment report on the medicinal products in question and the decisions relating thereto is invited to contact:

| The European Medicines Agency |
| --- |
| 30, Churchill Place, Canary Wharf |
| UK — LONDON E14 5EU |

The European Medicines Agency

30, Churchill Place, Canary Wharf

UK — LONDON E14 5EU

---

(1)  OJ L 136, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3672 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3672

 To require the Secretary of Labor to establish cost-of-living indexes 
                          on a regional basis.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 22, 1993

  Mr. Nadler introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Secretary of Labor to establish cost-of-living indexes 
                          on a regional basis.

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

SECTION 1. REGIONAL COST-OF-LIVING INDEXES.

    (a) General Rule.--Not later than the date 1 year after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall--
            (1) establish a system for determining cost-of-living 
        indexes separately for--
                    (A) each statistical area in the United States, and
                    (B) each congressional district, and
            (2) determine and publish the initial cost-of-living index 
        for each such area and district.
    (b) Methodology.--The cost-of-living index determined under 
subsection (a) for any statistical area or congressional district for 
any calendar year shall be based on the average market prices for the 
area or district for the 12-month period ending on August 31 of such 
calendar year. The market prices taken into account under the preceding 
sentence shall be selected and used under the same methodology as is 
used by the Secretary of Labor in developing the Consumer Price Index 
for All Urban Consumers.
    (c) Statistical Area.--For purposes of this section, the term 
``statistical area'' means--
            (1) any metropolitan statistical area as defined by the 
        Secretary of Commerce, and
            (2) the portion of any State not within a metropolitan 
        statistical area as so defined.
    (d) Congressional District.--For purposes of this section, the term 
``congressional district'' includes--
            (1) any State represented by a Representative at Large;
            (2) the District of Columbia; and
            (3) any possession of the United States.
    (e) Treatment of Possessions.--For purposes of this section, the 
terms ``United States'' and ``State'' include any possession of the 
United States.
    (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated $1,000,000 to carry out the purposes of this section.

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit  23.1 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-63758, 333-81326 and 333-128082) of our report dated April 19, 2007 on our audit of the consolidated financial statements of SpectRx, Inc. (the "Company"), which included explanatory paragraphs regarding the Company's change in accounting principle for its method of accounting for stock-based compensation and the Company's ability to continue as a going concern included in the 2006 annual report on Form 10-KSB.  

/s/ Eisner LLP 

New York, New York 

April 19, 2007
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 5.1


                                                     October 4, 2000


Webhire, Inc.
91 Hartwell Avenue
Lexington, Massachusetts 02421


         Re:  REGISTRATION STATEMENT ON FORM S-3


Ladies and Gentlemen:

         This opinion is furnished in our capacity as counsel to Webhire, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), in connection with the registration,
pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), of
1,702,128 shares (the "Shares") of common stock, par value $.01 per share, of
the Company.

         In connection with rendering this opinion, we have examined the
Certificate of Incorporation and the Bylaws of the Company, each as amended to
date; such records of the corporate proceedings of the Company as we have deemed
material; a registration statement on Form S-3 under the Securities Act (the
"Registration Statement") relating to the Shares and the prospectus contained
therein (the "Prospectus"); and such other certificates, receipts, records, and
documents as we considered necessary for the purposes of this opinion.

         We are attorneys admitted to practice in The Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. We express no opinion concerning the laws of any jurisdiction
other than the federal laws of the United States of America, the laws of The
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Delaware General Corporation Law.

         Based upon the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the Shares are
duly authorized, legally issued, fully paid and non-assessable by the Company
under the Delaware General Corporation Law.

         The foregoing assumes that all requisite steps will be taken to comply
with the requirements of the Securities Act and applicable requirements of state
laws regulating the offer and sale of securities.

         We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement and to the reference to our firm under the caption
"Validity of the Common Stock" in the Prospectus.

                                                 Very truly yours,

                                                 /s/ MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY

                                                 McDermott, Will and Emery
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT

REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

LRAD Corporation

San Diego, California

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-144698,
and File No. 333-125454) and Forms S-3 (File No. 333-99675, File No. 333-105740, File No. 333-107635, File No. 333-127534 and File No. 333-137289) of LRAD Corporation (the Company) of our report dated
December 1, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements of LRAD Corporation and Subsidiary as of September 30, 2010 and 2009 and for each of the years then ended appearing in the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K.



|                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ SQUAR, MILNER, PETERSON, MIRANDA & WILLIAMSON, 
LLP
|                                                       
|San Diego, CA                                          
|December 1, 2010
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lance Jackson, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Silver-man, J.), rendered December 22, 1989, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]). Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). As it cannot be said that the jury’s verdict was clearly unsupported by the record, it should not be disturbed *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88).

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review the propriety of all but one of the prosecutor’s remarks on summation *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Nuccie,*57 NY2d 818) and, in any event, his comments were either within the bounds of permissible advocacy, or in answer to issues raised by the defense, or harmless error *(see, People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396; *People v Ashwal,*39 NY2d 105; *People v Bartolomeo,*126 AD2d 375; *People v Jackson,*124 AD2d 823).

*774The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Eiber, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.