alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.11


 


Certain
identified information has been excluded because it is both not material and would

likely cause competitive harm if publicly disclosed.


 


AMENDMENT
TO RESEARCH AND OPTION AGREEMENT


 


This
Amendment to Research and Option Agreement (this “Amendment”) is made effective as of May 30, 2018 (the “First
Amendment Effective Date”) between Virpax Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Virpax”) and MedPharm Limited (“MedPharm”).
Virpax and MedPharm are each sometimes referred to herein as a “Party” and, collectively, as the “Parties.”


 


WHEREAS,
Virpax and MedPharm are parties to that certain Research and Option Agreement, dated as April 11, 2017, (the “MedPharm
Option Agreement”);


 


WHEREAS,
in consideration for the benefits to be gained by MedPharm under the MedPharm Option Agreement in connection with the continued
development of products by Virpax, MedPharm has agreed to the amendment set forth below;


 


Now,
Therefore,
in consideration of the foregoing premises and the mutual covenants contained herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows:


 


		1.	Amendments.



 


		a.	Appendix
                                         D of the MedPharm Option Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced by
                                         the attached Appendix D.



 


		2.	No
                                         Other Amendment. Except as specifically set forth herein, the MedPharm Option Agreement
                                         shall remain in full force and effect.



 


[signature
page follows]


 




     


     


    

 


 Certain
identified information has been excluded because it is both not material and would

likely
cause competitive harm if publicly disclosed.



 


In
Witness Whereof, the parties hereto have duly
executed this Amendment as of the First Amendment Effective Date.


 


	VIRPAX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.	 
	 	 	 
	By: 	/s/ Anthony Mack	 
	Name: 	Anthony Mack	 
	Title: 	CEO	 
	 	 	 
	MEDPHARM LIMITED	 
	 	 	 
	By: 	/s/ Andrew Muddle	 
	Name: 	Andrew Muddle	 
	Title: 	CEO	 



 


 [signature
page to MedPharm R&O Amendment]


 






     


     


    

 


Certain
identified information has been excluded because it is both not material and would

likely cause competitive harm if publicly disclosed.



 


Appendix
D


 


[**]


 


In
addition, the parties acknowledge that a license has previously been executed for [**].
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 48 (Monday, March 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 14583]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5910]



[[Page 14583]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7766]


Proposal To Extend the Agreement Between the Government of the 
United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Mali

    Notice of Proposal to Extend the Agreement Between the Government 
of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of 
Mali Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological 
Material from the Paleolithic Era (Stone Age) to Approximately the Mid-
Eighteenth Century.
    The Government of the Republic of Mali has informed the Government 
of the United States of America of its interest in an extension of the 
Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and 
the Government of the Republic of Mali Concerning the Imposition of 
Import Restrictions on Archaeological Material from the Paleolithic Era 
(Stone Age) to Approximately the Mid-Eighteenth Century.
    Pursuant to the authority vested in the Assistant Secretary for 
Educational and Cultural Affairs, and pursuant to the requirement under 
19 U.S.C. 2602(f)(1), an extension of this Agreement is hereby 
proposed.
    Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2602(f)(2), the views and recommendations of 
the Cultural Property Advisory Committee regarding this proposal will 
be requested.
    A copy of the Agreement, the Designated List of restricted 
categories of material, and related information can be found at the 
following Web site: http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/culprop.html.

    Dated: February 29, 2012.
Ann Stock,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-5910 Filed 3-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
#### Dale Douglas WORD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 88-372.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 8, 1988.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and N. Joseph Durant, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

Before NESBITT, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.

BASKIN, Judge.

Appellant Word contests the trial court’s order revoking probation. As one of the conditions of his probation, Word was ordered to make restitution to his victim. Word made only one payment to the victim, paying half the ordered amount. He failed to pay any other restitution, although each month he told his probation officer that he had income varying from $300 to $600. His probation officer testified that Word told her that he did not make restitution because the victim’s insurance paid her bills.

The state filed an affidavit charging Word with violation of probation. The affidavit alleged that Word violated the terms of his probation by (1) changing residence without permission; (2) failing to make monthly reports; (3) failing to work diligently at a lawful occupation; (4) failing to report to his probation officer; and (5) failing to make restitution payments. At the revocation hearing, Word’s probation officer was the only witness. She testified concerning Word’s representations of his earnings and his stated reasons for failing to make restitution. The trial court announced that it was revoking Word’s probation solely because of the failed restitution; however, the court’s written order set forth all the grounds listed in the state’s affidavit as the basis for revocation. Word contends that the trial court committed error by failing to require the state to show that Word was financially able to make restitution, and by issuing an order that did not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Word’s assertion that the state had the burden of showing his ability to pay restitution is without merit. Once the state makes an initial showing that the probationer failed to make ordered restitution, the burden is on the defendant to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he does not have the ability to pay. *Clark v. State,*510 So.2d 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); *Morgan v. State,*491 So.2d 326 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); *Bass v. State,*473 So.2d 1367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); *894§ 948.06(4), Fla.Stat. (1985). Applying that principle to the facts before us, we find no error in the trial court’s revocation of Word’s probation. Word’s excuse for failing to pay fell short of the standard.

Word also argues that the trial court’s written order failed to conform to the court’s pronouncements at the revocation hearing. A trial court’s written order must conform to the court’s oral pronouncements. *Williams v. State,*525 So.2d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We, therefore, reverse and remand for entry of an order in conformity with the trial court’s oral rulings at the revocation hearing.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED FOR ENTRY OF AN APPROPRIATE ORDER.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

   We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-89701, 333-66913, 333-44877, 333-43905,
333-36527, 333-26869, 333-24753 and 333-2600) of Verity, Inc. of our report
dated June 16, 2000 relating to the financial statements and financial statement
schedules, which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

San Jose, California
July 28, 2000
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Donald JUNIOR.

No. 89-K-0891.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Junior, Donald; — Defendants); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 88-KA-0426; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “J”, No. 87-600.

Prior report: La.App., 542 So.2d 23.

Denied.
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 31, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-18-00775-CV

SAN JACINTO RIVER AUTHORITY, Appellant

V.

CHIP SANCHES AND MARGARET SANCHES, Appellees

On Appeal from the 333rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2018-23314

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On February 18, 2020, the court notified all parties of the court’s intention to 

dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a); see also 

San Jacinto River Auth. v. Ogletree, —- S.W.3d —-, No. 14-18-00043-CV, 2020 

WL 428913, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 28, 2020, no pet. h.).

Appellant filed no response.
2

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jewell and Hassan.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

M EMORANDUM O RDER

Appellate case name: Darius Damascus Briggs v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 13

- 00291

- CR

Trial court case number: 12

- 04

- 03646 CR

Trial court: 435th District Court of Montgomery County

On March 18, 2014, this case was abated and remanded to the trial court to determine (1) whether appellant still wishes to pursue his appeal and (2) whether appellant’s appointed counsel should be permitted to withdraw and, if so, to appoint substitute counsel. The supplemental clerk’s record filed on May 2, 2014 contains (1) a motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s appointed counsel, (2) an order by the trial court granting counsel’s motion to withdraw and appointing s ubstitute counsel, (3) a sworn affidavit of appellant stating that he wishes to proceed with his appeal, and (4) the trial court’s “Findings of Fact, Recommendation and Order

. ” Accordingly, we REINSTATE this case on the Court’s active docket.

Appellant’s b rief is ORDERED to be filed within 30 days of this order. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.6(a). Appellee’s brief, if any, is ORDERED to be filed within 30 days of the filing of appellant’s brief. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(b). No extensions of time will be granted a bsent extraordinary circumstances.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jane Bland

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: May 6, 2014
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 14

- 00280

- CV

TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY , DAVE PARROTT, AND BG JOE RAMIREZ , Appellant s
v.

GUSTAVO CARAPIA , Appellee

From the 272nd District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 14

- 002220

- CV

- 272

ORDER

Appellant’s motion to substitute counsel was filed on November 13, 2014 . The

motion does not indicate that a copy was provided to the client in a manner of delivery

authorized by the rule. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 6.5(b), (d). The Court simply reminds counsel of

that obligation; but because the rule does not require counsel to cert ify compliance with

that aspect of the rule to the Court, the Court will not deny the motion on that basis.Texas A&M University v. Carapia Page 2

Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to substitute Susan M. Watson in place

of Angela V. Colmenero.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gr ay, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Motion granted Order issued and filed November 20, 2014
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2273 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on oysters (other than smoked), 

prepared or preserved. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

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

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on oysters (other 

than smoked), prepared or preserved. 

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

3 SECTION 1. OYSTERS (OTHER THAN SMOKED), PREPARED 

4 OR PRESERVED. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.23.07 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 oysters (other than smoked), prepared or preserved) is 

8 amended by striking the date in the effective period col9 umn and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2273 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

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

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
#### Nelson C. RUDOLPH, and Burton M. Rudolph, Lawful Heirs of the Estate of Jack A. Rudolph and individually, and Nelson C. Rudolph, as Personal Representative of the Estate, Appellants, v. Miriam RUDOLPH, Appellee.

No. 87-2781.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 7, 1988.

Rehearing Denied July 13, 1988.

Peter Kneski, Miami, for appellants.

Nelson & Feldman and Michael K. Feld-man, Miami, for appellee.

*1037Before NESBITT, FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Nardone v. Reynolds,*333 So.2d 25 (Fla.1976).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             641
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                        95
<INVENTORY>                                      1,012
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,895
<PP&E>                                           6,261
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,659
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,173
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,503
<BONDS>                                            567<F1>
<COMMON>                                             5
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        287
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,949
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,173
<SALES>                                          7,176
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,286
<CGS>                                            2,116
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,116
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,266<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  56
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    838
<INCOME-TAX>                                       276
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                562
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       562
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.07
<FN>
<F1>Does not include guarantee of ESOP debt of 256.
<F2>Only includes R&D expense.
</FN>


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Amendment No. 1 to
Registration Statement No. 333-38765 on Form S-3, Amendment No. 1 to
Registration Statement No. 333-38759 on Form S-4 and Registration Statement No.
333-71063 on Form S-8 of Armor Holdings, Inc. of our report dated March 19,
1998, appearing in this Form 10-K/A of Armor Holdings, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 1998 and to the reference to us under the heading of "Experts" in
the Prospectuses which are part of these Registration Statements.



/s/ Deloitte & Touche
New York, New York
May 26, 1999
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 1833

In re: MALCOLM A. JORDAN

,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina

, at Raleigh.

Submitted : September 28, 2023 Decided: October 2, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Malcolm A. Jordan, Petitioner Pro Se

.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1833 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/02/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:

Malcom A. Jordan petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court

has unduly delayed ruling on his amended 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition

. He seeks an order

from this court directing the district court to act. Because there has been significant recent

progre ss in the district court, the present record does not reveal undue delay. Accordingly,

we deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and a rgument

would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED USCA4 Appeal: 23-1833 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/02/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2312 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2312

 To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on 3,3 Dichlorobenzidine 
                            Dihydrochloride.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on 3,3 Dichlorobenzidine 
                            Dihydrochloride.

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

SECTION 1. 3,3 DICHLOROBENZIDINE DIHYDROCHLORIDE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.25.73 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 3,3 Dichlorobenzidine 
Dihydrochloride) is amended by striking the date in the effective 
column period and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Betty HARDY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SECURITY INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 87-1325.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

March 15, 1989.

Wright & Wright, Stuart Wright, Natchi-toches, for plaintiff-appellee.

Talbot, Sotile, Carmouche, Marchano & Marcello, Victor L. Marcello, Donaldson-ville, and Brittain & Williams, McGlathery & Passman, Joe P. Williams, Natchitoches, for defendant-appellant.

Before STOKER, DOUCET and KNOLL, JJ.

DOUCET, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the suit of *Sargee v. Security Industrial Insurance Company,*540 So.2d 1276 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1989), rendered this day, the judgment appealed is affirmed in accordance with the views expressed in the companion case.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.1**





**CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO**


**RULE
      13a-14(b) UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION
      1350**





In
      connection with the Annual Report of North American Scientific, Inc.
      ("Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2007, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      John B. Rush, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James
      W.
      Klingler, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify, to the best of our knowledge, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange of 1934; and





(2)  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:
                January 29, 2008
            By:
            /s/JOHN
                B. RUSH
              John
                B. Rush
              *Chief
                Executive Officer*Date:
                January 29, 2008
            By:
            /s/JAMES
                W. KLINGLER
              James
                W. Klingler
              *Chief
                Financial Officer*
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2308 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2308

 To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on certain manufacturing 
                         equipment for molding.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on certain manufacturing 
                         equipment for molding.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT FOR MOLDING.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.84.88 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to certain manufacturing 
equipment for molding) is amended by striking the date in the effective 
column period and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```