alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7296 JIMMY DUNCAN, a/k/a Jimmy L. Duncan, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus N. GORDON, Sergeant, Lee Correctional Institution; JANE DOE, a/k/a NFN Slade, Nurse, Lee Correctional Institution; JANE DOE, a/k/a NFN Robinson, Nurse, Lee Correctional Institution; OFFICER ANDERSON, NFN, Lee Correctional Institution; OFFICER DUBOSE, NFN, Lee Correctional Institution; OFFICER BRUNSON, NFN, Lee Correctional Institution; SERGEANT ROBERTS, a/k/a NFN Robertson, NFN, Lee Correctional Institution, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (8:06-cv-00396-MBS) Submitted: December 20, 2007 Decided: December 28, 2007 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.- 2 - Jimmy Duncan, Appellant Pro Se. John Evans James, III, LEE, ERTER, WILSON, JAMES, HOLLER & SMITH, LLC, Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 3 - PER CURIAM: Jimmy Duncan appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint, and a subsequent order denying his motion to alter or amend judgment and motion to stay. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Duncan v. Gordon , No. 8:06-cv-00396-MBS (D.S.C. Mar. 29, 2007; filed July 11, 2007 & entered July 12, 2007). We further deny Duncan’s motions to authorize preparation of transcript at government expense and for default judgment. 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
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 77 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 77

To amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to authorize 
   the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate for lower 
                prices for Medicare prescription drugs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 23 (legislative day, January 3), 2013

 Mr. Franken (for himself and Ms. Klobuchar) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to authorize 
   the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate for lower 
                prices for Medicare prescription drugs.

    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 ``Prescription Drug and Health 
Improvement Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. NEGOTIATING FAIR PRICES FOR MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.

    (a) Negotiating Fair Prices.--
            (1) In general.--Section 1860D-11 of the Social Security 
        Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-111) is amended by striking subsection (i) 
        (relating to noninterference) and by inserting the following:
    ``(i) Authority To Negotiate Prices With Manufacturers.--In order 
to ensure that beneficiaries enrolled under prescription drug plans and 
MA-PD plans pay the lowest possible price, the Secretary shall have 
authority similar to that of other Federal entities that purchase 
prescription drugs in bulk to negotiate contracts with manufacturers of 
covered part D drugs, consistent with the requirements and in 
furtherance of the goals of providing quality care and containing costs 
under this part.''.
            (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
        shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Biannual Reports to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, and every 6 months thereafter, the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall submit to Congress a 
report on the negotiations conducted by the Secretary under section 
1860D-11(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-111(i)), as 
amended by subsection (a), including a description of how such 
negotiations are achieving lower prices for covered part D drugs (as 
defined in section 1860D-2(e) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1395w-102(e))) for Medicare beneficiaries.
                                 <all>
```
Amendment to Consulting Agreement between TapImmune Inc. and John Bonfiglio



 Exhibit 10.2 

AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT 

THIS AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 12th day of June,
2015, by and between TapImmune Inc. (the “Company”) and Dr. John Bonfiglio (“Consultant”), and amends that certain Consulting Agreement between the Company and Consultant, dated February 10, 2015 (the “Consulting
Agreement”). 
 W I T N E S S E T H: 

WHEREAS, the Company desires a greater time commitment from Consultant to assist the Company, and the Consultant is willing to devote
additional time thereto; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants contained herein, the receipt
and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
 1. Paragraph 4 of the Consulting Agreement is
hereby amended to increase the monthly cash fee from Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) per month to Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) per month for each month spent performing Consultant’s duties under the Consulting Agreement. 

2. EXHIBIT A attached to the Consulting Agreement is hereby amended to increase the number of hours that Consultant shall perform these
services from “up to 80 hours per month” to “up to 120 hours per month.” 
 3. Except as specifically modified by this
Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Consulting Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and the same are hereby ratified and confirmed. 

4. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts (including by electronic means), each counterpart is deemed an original, and all
counterparts collectively constitute one and the same document. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on day and
year first above written. 
  

									
	CONSULTANT:	 		 	COMPANY:
				
		 		 		 	TapImmune Inc.
					
	 /s/ John Bonfiglio
	 		 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Glynn Wilson

	Dr. John Bonfiglio	 		 		 	Dr. Glynn Wilson, Chief Executive Officer
## NUMBER 13

- 21

- 00 2 35

- C V

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

IN RE PETER MICHAEL BUFFA

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

.



## ORDER

Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

Relator Peter Michael Buffa has filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to

compel the trial court to vacate an “Order Clarifying and Granting Judgment” on grounds

that the case had been nonsuited

. Relator has a related appeal pending in this Court in

our appellate cause number 13

- 21

- 00171

- CV.

The Court requests that the real part y in interest, Elisa Silva Buffa

, or any others

whose interest would be directly affected by the relief sought, file a response to the

petition for writ of mandamus on or before the expiration of ten days from the date of this2 or der. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed on the

2nd d ay of August, 202 1

.
EX-10.11



 Exhibit 10.11 

Officer Benefits 
 Officers of United
Continental Holdings, Inc. (“UCH”) and United Airlines, Inc. receive certain miscellaneous benefits in addition to those set forth in the applicable severance plan or employment agreement. The following is a summary of such benefits, which
have been approved by the Compensation Committee of UCH: 
 Executive Life Insurance. All officers receive company-paid basic life insurance in an
amount equal to one times their base salary (up to a $500,000 maximum) and group variable universal life insurance in an amount equal to three times their base salary (up to a $3,000,000 maximum). 

Annual Executive Physical. The company has made arrangements with certain providers to provide officers a company-paid annual comprehensive physical
examination. 
 Health Club Fees. Officers are eligible for reimbursement of certain limited health club membership fees (up to an annual limit of
$2,500). 
 Tax Preparation, Financial Services and Estate/Trust Planning. Officers are eligible for reimbursement for certain services provided by
their choice of a certified financial planner, estate planner or tax attorney/certified tax accountant. 
 Relocation Assistance. The company
maintains a relocation program to provide for a successful and smooth transition for officers who relocate in connection with joining the company. The program includes the following primary elements: temporary living assistance; reimbursement of
normal and customary closing costs associated with a home sale; movement of household goods; assistance with a new home purchase and closing costs; a miscellaneous allowance to cover house hunting, travel and other expenses; and protection for a
loss on sale of a home, if needed. In addition, officers are eligible for a tax-gross-up with respect to home sales and new home purchases resulting from such relocation. 

Parking. The company provides paid parking at the officers’ headquarters location, as well as ORD, IAH and SFO (if applicable). 

Community Support Travel Program. Officers are able to nominate one or more qualified organizations to receive a donation of up to four domestic coach
tickets (or two first class domestic tickets) each year.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
     12/31/96 consolidated financial statements and is qualified in its entirety
     by reference to each financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         35,137
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  358,169
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (14,830)
<INVENTORY>                                    321,770
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               39,374
<PP&E>                                         53,621
<DEPRECIATION>                                 22,674
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 861,949
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          708,114
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       12
<OTHER-SE>                                     104,521
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   861,949
<SALES>                                        1,855,540
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,855,540
<CGS>                                          1,724,432
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  102,235
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             8,513
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                20,360
<INCOME-TAX>                                   6,086
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            12,166
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   12,166
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  1.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.16



</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Phillip Forstell, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Baker, J.), rendered March 16, 1989, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the court should have dismissed a count of the indictment charging him with criminal possession of stolen property prior to trial since the evidence before the Grand Jury with respect to that count was allegedly insufficient. He argues that even though the foregoing count was ultimately dismissed after the completion of the People’s case, the evidence which had been admitted with respect thereto allegedly influenced the jury to unfairly convict him of an unrelated robbery count contained in the same indictment. We disagree.

We note that the defendant failed to preserve the foregoing contention for appellate review, since he neither registered a *622timely objection nor sought any type of remedial action from the court in order to minimize the alleged prejudice of which he now complains *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, a review of the trial transcript reveals that the defendant’s contentions of reversible error are without merit. In light of the overwhelming evidence that the defendant had stolen the property on which the robbery count was based, defense counsel adopted a trial strategy of conceding the defendant’s guilt of the underlying theft and challenged the People’s proof only in connection with the "forcible taking” element of the robbery charge. Since the defendant conceded the commission of the underlying larceny, his present assertion that the jury was unduly influenced by, or convicted him solely upon the strength of, the evidence relating to the previously dismissed criminal possession count, is lacking in merit. Similarly without merit is the defendant’s speculative assertion that, upon having heard evidence in connection with the dismissed count, the jury would have concluded that he "was worthy of punishment regardless of his guilt or innocence of’ the robbery charge.

Finally, we reject the defendant’s contentions of prosecutorial misconduct. Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the prosecutor’s summation remarks constituted fair comment in light of the statements made by defense counsel in his summation, which "open[ed] the door” *(People v Garcia,*160 AD2d 258, 259) to the prosecutor’s response *(see, People v Wood,*66 NY2d 374, 380; *People v Rahming,*26 NY2d 411, 418; *People v Bartolomeo,*126 AD2d 375, 390; *People v Saylor,*115 AD2d 671; *see also, People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396; *People v Haile M.,*160 AD2d 1027, 1028; *People v Torres,*160 AD2d 285, 286; *People v Gonzalez,*156 AD2d 711, 712). In any event, the prosecutor’s remarks did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.
# Diario Oficial C 262I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0928 |
| --- | --- |
| Diario Oficial
  de la Unión Europea | C 262I |
| | |
| Edición en lengua española | Comunicaciones e informaciones | 64.° año5 de julio de 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0928

Diario Oficial

de la Unión Europea

C 262I

Edición en lengua española

Comunicaciones e informaciones

64.° año5 de julio de 2021

---

| Sumario | Página |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Información |
| | INFORMACIÓN PROCEDENTE DE LOS ESTADOS MIEMBROS |
| 2021/C 262 I/01 | Información comunicada por los Estados miembros en relación con el cierre de pesquerías | 1 |

Sumario

Página

IV   Información

INFORMACIÓN PROCEDENTE DE LOS ESTADOS MIEMBROS

2021/C 262 I/01

Información comunicada por los Estados miembros en relación con el cierre de pesquerías

1

---

| ES | |
| --- | --- |

ES

---

IV Información

INFORMACIÓN PROCEDENTE DE LOS ESTADOS MIEMBROS

| 5.7.2021 | ES | Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea | CI 262/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2021

ES

Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea

CI 262/1

---

Información comunicada por los Estados miembros en relación con el cierre de pesquerías

(2021/C 262 I/01)

De conformidad con el artículo 35, apartado 3, del Reglamento (CE) n.o 1224/2009 del Consejo, de 20 de noviembre de 2009, por el que se establece un régimen de control de la Unión para garantizar el cumplimiento de las normas de la política pesquera común (1), se ha decidido el cierre de la pesquería contemplada en el cuadro siguiente:

| Fecha y hora del cierre | 3.6.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Duración | Del 3.6.2021 al 31.12.2021 |
| Estado miembro | Francia |
| Población o grupo de poblaciones | ANF/8C3411 |
| Especie | Rape (Lophiidae) |
| Zona | 8c, 9 y 10; aguas de la Unión de la zona 34.1.1 del CPACO |
| Tipos de buques pesqueros | --- |
| Número de referencia | 08/TQ92 |

Fecha y hora del cierre

3.6.2021

Duración

Del 3.6.2021 al 31.12.2021

Estado miembro

Francia

Población o grupo de poblaciones

ANF/8C3411

Especie

Rape (Lophiidae)

Zona

8c, 9 y 10; aguas de la Unión de la zona 34.1.1 del CPACO

Tipos de buques pesqueros

---

Número de referencia

08/TQ92

---

(1)  DO L 343 de 22.12.2009, p. 1.

---
#### Marie Del Papa, Respondent, v Temistocle Del Papa, Appellant.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Modugno, J.), dated December 7, 1988, which, *inter alia,*(1) awarded custody of the two minor children to the plaintiff wife, (2) directed the husband to pay $120 per week in child support, (3) granted the wife exclusive possession of the marital residence until the youngest child reaches her majority, (4) directed the husband to vacate the marital residence within 90 days from the filing of the judgment, and (5) directed the husband to carry a $25,000 life insurance policy and designate the two infant children as beneficiaries.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the husband’s argument, we find no reason to disturb the Supreme Court’s determination awarding custody of the two minor children to the wife. It is well settled that an *799award of custody is a matter of discretion for the hearing court and its decision is entitled to great weight *(see, Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 173; *Matter of Diane L. v Richard L.,*151 AD2d 760, 761). The record indicates, *inter alia,*that the husband has a long work schedule, and the children would be unattended by him for a significant amount of time. In contrast, the wife works very close to the children’s school and leaves work at 4:00 p.m., shortly after school ends. In addition, the wife has been the primary caregiver for the greater part of the children’s lives. Under these circumstances, custody of the children was properly awarded to the wife.

Nor did the court err in awarding the wife exclusive possession of the marital residence until the youngest child reaches the age of majority *(see, Pocilio v Pocilio,*155 AD2d 736; *Cassano v Cassano,*111 AD2d 208, 210; *Damiano v Damiano,*94 AD2d 132, 135).

We have examined the husband’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit *(see, Pacillo v Pocilio, supra; Knapp v Knapp,*105 AD2d 1019, 1020; Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [8] [a]; [1] [c]; [d] [1]). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Kunzeman and Hooper, JJ., concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 18

- 00611

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.G. IV , a Child

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- CI

- 16418 Honorable Martha Tanner, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE ANGELINI , AND JUSTICE BARNARD

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. Appellant’s motion for leave to file late notice of appeal is MOOT. Costs of the appeal are taxed against appell ant.

SIGNED October 17, 2018.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
VI 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 585 

For the relief of Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno, Micaela Lopez Martinez, 

and Adilene Martinez. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 18, 2013 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno, Micaela 

Lopez Martinez, and Adilene Martinez. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi5 sion of law, for the purposes of the Immigration and Na6 tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Jose Alberto Mar7 tinez Moreno, Micaela Lopez Martinez, and Adilene Mar8 tinez shall each be deemed to have been lawfully admitted 

9 to, and remained in, the United States, and shall be eligi10 ble for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 585 IS

1 admitted for permanent residence under section 245 of the 

2 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) upon 

3 filing an application for such adjustment of status. 

4 (b) APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF FEES.—Sub5 section (a) shall apply only if the application for adjust6 ment of status is filed with appropriate fees not later than 

7 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS.— 

9 Upon the granting of permanent resident status to Jose 

10 Alberto Martinez Moreno, Micaela Lopez Martinez, and 

11 Adilene Martinez, the Secretary of State shall instruct the 

12 proper officer to reduce by 3, during the current or subse13 quent fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that 

14 are made available to natives of the country of birth of 

15 Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno, Micaela Lopez Martinez, 

16 and Adilene Martinez under section 202(e) or 203(a) of 

17 the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e) 

18 and 1153(a)), as applicable. 

19 (d) PAYGO.—The budgetary effects of this Act, for 

20 the purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You21 Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by reference to the 

22 latest statement titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO 

23 Legislation’’ for this Act, submitted for printing in the 

24 Congressional Record by the Chairman of the Senate 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 585 IS

1 Budget Committee, provided that such statement has been 

2 submitted prior to the vote on passage. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
-81 -80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75

 37

 38

 39

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

05/26

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 26 May 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL