alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the use in this Registration Statement on Form N-4 (the
"Registration Statement") of our report dated April 25, 2002, relating to the
financial statements of the Prudential Qualified Individual Variable Contract
Account, which appears in such Registration Statement. We also consent to the
use in this Registration Statement of our report dated February 12, 2002,
relating to the consolidated financial statements of The Prudential Insurance
Company of America, which appears in such Registration Statement. We also
consent to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such Registration
Statement.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
--------------------------

New York, New York
April 25, 2002
United States Department of Agriculture

Join a group that represents all facets of 

your industry—from producers to processors, 

manufacturers to importers—and help 

strengthen the future of American agriculture. 

April 2014 www.ams.usda.gov/ResearchAndPromotion

Agricultural Marketing Service

Shape the Future

of Agriculture

Be a Voice For Your Industry by Serving

on a Research and Promotion 

Program Board

As a Board Member, You Will:

R On average, attend 2-6 meetings per year 

(6-15 days)

R Receive reimbursement for travel costs

R Help direct how assessment money is spent

R Build consumer confidence and protect the 

industry’s reputation

R Collaborate and network with stakeholders and 

board members from across the industry

R Develop leadership and communication skills

Contact the 

AMS Office of Outreach 

at 202-690-0487 to find out 

how you can get 

involved.

USDA is an equal opportunity employer and provider.

What is a Research and Promotion Program?

Research and Promotion programs focus on nutrition, 

research, marketing, and consumer outreach efforts 

that improve, maintain, and develop opportunities for 

agricultural commodities and products. 

The programs allow stakeholders across an industry to pool 

their expertise and resources. Research and promotion 

programs are administered by a board or council whose 

members are nominated by the specific industry and then 

appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture. 

There are over 20 national research and promotion 

programs serving a variety of commodity industries.
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT TO THE JOURNEY MEDICAL CORPORATION


 


2015 STOCK PLAN


 


This Amendment to the Journey Medical Corporation
2015 Stock Plan (the “Plan”), is hereby adopted on this day of June, 2022, by the Board of Directors (the “Board”)
of Journey Medical Corporation (the “Company”).


 


WITNESETH:


 


WHEREAS, the Company adopted the Plan for
the purposes set forth therein; and


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17 of the
Plan, the Board has the right to amend the Plan with respect to certain matters, provided that any material increase in the number of
shares available under the Plan shall be subject to stockholder approval; and


 


WHEREAS, the Board has approved and authorized
this Amendment to the Plan and has recommended that the stockholders of the Company approve this Amendment;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the
Plan is hereby amended, subject to and effective as of the date of stockholder approval hereof, in the following particulars:


 


	 	1.	Section 4 of the Plan is hereby amended by increasing the share references in such section to 7,642,857, so that such section reads in its entirety as follows:


 


“4. Stock. The stock subject
to Stock Rights shall be authorized but unissued shares of Common Stock of the Company, par value 0.0001 per share, or such shares of
the Company’s capital stock into which such class of shares may be converted pursuant to any reorganization, recapitalization, merger,
consolidation or the like (the “Common Stock”), or shares of Common Stock reacquired by the Company in any manner.
The aggregate number of shares that may be issued pursuant to the Plan is 7,642,857 shares of Common Stock, subject to adjustment as provided
herein. Any such shares may be issued as ISOs, NSOs or Stock Bonuses, or to persons or entities making purchases pursuant to Purchase
Rights, so long as the number of shares so issued does not exceed such aggregate number, as adjusted. If any Option granted under the
Plan shall expire or terminate for any reason without having been exercised in full or shall cease for any reason to be exercisable in
whole or in part, or if the Company shall reacquire any shares issued pursuant to Stock Rights, the unpurchased shares subject to such
Options and any shares so reacquired by the Company shall again be available for grants of Stock Rights under the Plan. Shares of Common
Stock which are withheld to pay the exercise price of an Option and/or any related withholding obligations shall not be available for
issuance under the Plan.”


 


Except as specifically set forth herein, the terms of the Plan shall
be and remain unchanged, and the Plan as amended shall remain in full force and effect.


 


The foregoing is hereby acknowledged as being an Amendment to the Plan,
as adopted by the Board on April 19, 2022, and approved by the Company’s stockholders on June 21, 2022.


 


JOURNEY MEDICAL CORPORATION


 


	By:	/s/ Claude Maraoui	 


Claude Maraoui


 


President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40596 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus REFUGIO REYES-ALDAVA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-98-CR-66-1

- - - - - - - - - - May 6, 1999 Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Refugio Reyes-Aldava appeals his sentence after conviction for being illegally present in the United States after having been previously deported in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). Reyes-Aldava contends for the first time on appeal that the district court erred when it enhanced his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) because the definition of “aggravated felony” in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) is unconstitutionally vague as applied to him. Because this issueNo. 98-40596 -2- was not raised in the district court, we review it for plain error only. See United States v. Spires , 79 F.3d 464, 465 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Knowles , 29 F.3d 947, 950-51 (5th Cir. 1994). This court does not follow contrary authority from other circuits. See, e.g. , United States v. Tabacca , 924 F.2d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 1991). To demonstrate plain error, an appellant must show clear or obvious error that affects his substantial rights; if he does, this court has discretion to correct a forfeited error that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings but is not required to do so. United States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (citing United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 730-35 (1993)). Whether the vagueness doctrine applies to sentencing statutes which merely pertain to “the statutory range [within which] the guideline sentence will fall” is dubious. United
States v. Pearson , 910 F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir. 1990). As such, the district court’s enhancement of Reyes-Aldava’s sentence based on his aggravated felony which falls under the purview of § 1101(a)(43) was not plain error. Reyes-Aldava’s substantial rights are not affected; nor does his sentence reflect adversely on the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
AFFIRMED.
Plant Systems Audit Program Checklist

USDA, AMS, SCP, SCI Audit Checklist

Company Name:  Click or tap here to enter text.

Company Location:  Click or tap here to enter text.

Billing Account No:  Click or tap here to enter text.

Audit Date:  Click or tap here to enter text.

*Scope Indicators:

· CC – Cold Chain

· FD – Food Defense

· FD – Current Good Manufacturing Practices 

· HACCP – Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points

· LAF – Low Acid Canned Food

· LMF – Low Moisture Food

· PC – Preventive Controls

· QMS – Quality Management System

· ST – Sanitary Transport

· TR – Traceability

· USDA/USAID – USDA and USAID Contract Requirements for International Procurement

For Official Government Use Only							             Page 2USDA, AMS, SCP, Specialty Crops Inspection Division	                                                                                                            Food Defense Version 1.0 (July 2022)	

For Official Government Use Only							             Page 6USDA, AMS, SCP, Specialty Crops Inspection Division	                                                                                                            Food Defense Version 1.0 (July 2022)	

# image1.emf
#### Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., Respondent, v L.N. Properties Inc. et al., Appellants.

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (C. Beauchamp Ciparick, J.) entered December 14, 1990 which, *inter alia,*denied summary judgment in favor of defendants, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff seeks to recover $1,103,027 plus interest from the defendants, based upon a certain note and guarantees executed by the defendants in various capacities, in favor of plaintiff, to secure the payment of a loan in the principal amount of $1,000,000. Defendants do not dispute the existence and execution of the note and guarantees but, in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3213, raise the defenses of lack of consideration, misapplication of the proceeds of the loan by the plaintiff, and fraud.

All of the defenses arise from allegations that plaintiff misapplied proceeds of the loan and then willfully failed to disclose its acts to the defendants. If proved, lack of consideration is a "perfectly viable defense.” *(Fopeco, Inc. v General Coatings Technologies,*107 AD2d 609, 610.)

The record makes clear that there are issues of fact as to when defendants became aware of the application of the loan proceeds which they contend was improper and as to whether defendants acquiesced in that use of the funds. Further, the parties disagree with respect to the exact purpose of the loan, evidenced by the note and guarantees, in relation to the underlying business arrangement between the defendants and an individual not a party to this action, whose account was credited with the proceeds of the loan and whose personal debts to plaintiff were allegedly improperly paid out of the loan proceeds. Consequently, the granting of summary judgment would require inferences not warranted by this record. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1266 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1266

To amend title 18, United States Code, to require firearm assembly kits 
                    to be considered to be firearms.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 14, 2019

 Mr. Espaillat (for himself, Mr. Schneider, Mr. Cicilline, Mr. Cohen, 
 Mr. Swalwell of California, Mr. Cardenas, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. Norton, 
Mrs. Watson Coleman, and Ms. Velazquez) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to require firearm assembly kits 
                    to be considered to be firearms.

    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 ``Ghost Guns Are Guns Act''.

SEC. 2. FIREARM ASSEMBLY KITS CONSIDERED TO BE FIREARMS.

    Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``or (D) any destructive 
        device'' and inserting ``; (D) any destructive device; or (E) 
        any combination of parts designed or intended for use in 
        converting any device into a firearm and from which a firearm 
        may be readily assembled''; and
            (2) in paragraph (4)--
                    (A) by adding ``and'' at the end of subparagraph 
                (A);
                    (B) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph 
                (B) and inserting a period; and
                    (C) by striking subparagraph (C).
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR EN BANC RECONSIDERATION 

Appellate case name: In re Bridgette Massey 

Appellate case number: 01-14-00903-CV

Trial court case number: 1814

Trial court: 12th District Court of Grimes County

Date motion filed: January 30, 2015

Party filing motion: Relator

It is ordered that the motion for en banc reconsideration is DENIED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting for the Court*

En banc court consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings, Keyes, Higley, Bland, 

Massengale, Brown, Huddle, and Lloyd.

Date: April 14, 2015
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 13, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 13, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18I0240. ARTHUR BRYANT v. RHONDA HUDSON.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

STCV1600670
OXWICE OF



# THE**ATTORNEY GEBERAL** 

AUSTIN. TEXAS Bononble Uel?f.a

Ca~ba couut~ AttQrm 

### J*Zforeoa 0-A Reamant, Tma81

:

. .

# . **. ._**  **.** **:.:.*..** **.**

**. ,.**  **.: >..**  **:: _-**  **.**
**. .**  **.. :..**  **‘ _** ,. -. ) i. ‘,... ., :’

, ” I- _.. .

. . .: :.:.

. .
’6.. ‘ . d i : ,-:: .,; : 

## ha **81s~ Rx**  **aorta hrxy,**  **% Tex.** 

**Cr..&** 3 

## 255 E. 3'.7fo; lk parte C8xxQ.a. 92 Tex. Cr. **R. 309,**  **2& S.**  **3. 6%**  **.**

**. .** 

be held crolli;tittrhional.(and ta vlsw of the Piutborlti.. above

# Eta&&~

‘ . : c ; , .
Order entered April 14, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01042-CV

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS, INC., Appellant

V.

ALESSANDRO UDELL, Appellee

On Appeal from the 95th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-03191

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s April 10, 2015 unopposed motion for an extension of time to 

file a combined reply/cross-appellee’s brief. Appellant shall file its combined brief by APRIL 

20, 2015.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
spt10b51howardjune2022si






 





 






PARTI  Account and Plan Information  Instructions: To be completed by MSSB and reviewed by the Seller.  The undersigned (referred to hereinafter as the "Seller", "I" or "me") hereby appoints Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC ("MSSB")  as my agent for the purposes of implementing this Sales Plan (this "Plan") that complies with the requirements of Rule 10b5-1 (c)(1)  under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") as outlined below and for the purpose of executing  this Plan. I understand that this Plan is subject to review prior to acceptance by MSSB and that, upon acceptance, MSSB will use  commercially reasonable efforts to perform its obligations under this Plan.  The appointment of MSSB is for the purpose of selling my securities pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth below. Subject  to such terms and conditions, MSSB accepts such appointment. This Plan is valid only for the specific security, account number and  maximum total shares indicated:  Issuer (the "Issuer''): Sprout Social, Inc. Trading Symbol: SPT  Adoption Date: 06/02/2022 Plan Type: New Plan  The date on which the Seller executes this Plan will be defined as the Adoption Date (the "Adoption Date").  Seller's Name: Justyn R Howard Revocable Trust  FA Number: 365 Account#:709-xx Selling Start Date:07/07/2022  Note: The "Selling Start Date" may be no sooner than 30 days after the Adoption Date that this Plan is executed.  Plan End Date:06/09/2023 Commission: $0.04 per share  Seller's Affiliation Status: � 144 Affiliate � Section 16 insider D Non 144 Affiliate but subject to trading  windows D Other  Share Type: D Options � Shares already owned D Restricted Stock Award /Units D Other  Plan Total Share Quantity: Trade Schedule A:  Trade Schedule B:  Total Shares:  For Internal Use Only: □Drop-Ins D No-Sales Periods  M S P  Q  240,000  240,000  Entered ____ Uploaded ___ Sent to Branch __ _ Received __ _  Checked. ___ _  Additional Notes:  Additional Notes:  Entered __ _  Page2  





 






 





 






 





 






 





 






******NO SALES PERIODS BELOW******
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-30510

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RICO DEANGELO LAWRENCE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:08-CR-337-1

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rico Deangelo Lawrence appeals the 70-month within-guidelines sentence

imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with

intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a

detectable amount of cocaine hydrochloride (powder cocaine). Lawrence argues

that the sentence is substantively unreasonable and that a 60-month sentence

would more adequately address the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1),

(2), and (4).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 15, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

Case: 09-30510 Document: 00511051158 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2010
No. 09-30510

2

The record shows that the district court based Lawrence’s sentence on the

advisory guidelines range, the information in the presentence report, and the

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The court considered Lawrence’s arguments for a

sentence at the bottom of the guidelines range and the Government’s arguments

against such a sentence and determined that a 70-month sentence was

appropriate. Lawrence is essentially asking this court to substitute his

assessment of the appropriate sentence for that of the district court, which we

will not do. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v.

Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 328

(2008). He has not established that the district court abused its discretion in

imposing his sentence, and he has not rebutted the presumption that his withinguidelines sentence was reasonable. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 50-51; United States

v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). The district court’s

judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 09-30510 Document: 00511051158 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2010
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.23




                          AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT DATED
                                 MARCH 29, 2002

         THIS AMENDMENT (the "Amendment") to the Agreement by and between MAS
Capital Inc. ("MAS") and Hopkins Capital Group II, LLC, ("Hopkins Capital
Group") as of the 29th day of March, 2002 (the "Agreement"), is made and entered
into by and between MAS and Hopkins Capital Group as of this 17th of April 2002.

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

         WHEREAS, it has been recently discovered that the Agreement contains an
error to wit, the Agreement states that MAS had been being granted an option to
purchase 100,000 shares of BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. ("BDSI" or
the "Company") common stock (evidenced by Option No. NQ-00019 before the planned
1-for-4.370 reverse stock split) ("MAS Option"); and

         WHEREAS, the reference to ownership of the MAS Option No. NQ-00019 is
inaccurate and that said option is owned by Aaron Tsai, individually, and is not
owned by MAS.

         NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration in hand received,
including the mutual covenants and promises of the parties set forth herein, the
parties mutually agree as follows:

         1. The Agreement is hereby amended to reflect that the MAS Option is
owned by Aaron Tsai and is not owned by MAS.

         2. By separate agreement (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit
"A"), Aaron Tsai has surrendered to BDSI Option No. NQ-00019 and has authorized
BDSI to cancel said Option No. NQ-00019. Exhibit "A" specifically references
that, as a result of said surrender and cancellation of Option No. NQ-00019,
Aaron Tsai shall have no right or entitlement thereunder or otherwise, to
acquire any securities of BDSI.

         3. MAS hereby represents and warrants that it has no interest in Option
No. NQ-00019 nor does it have any right or entitlement to acquire any shares of
capital stock from BDSI.

         4. This Amendment constitutes the entire understanding of the parties
concerning the subject matter contained herein.

         5. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with
the laws of the State of Florida.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties set their hand and seal on the day and
year first above written.

MAS Capital Inc.                             Hopkins Capital Group II, LLC


By:       Aaron Tsai                         By:      /s/ Francis E. O'Donnell
   -------------------------------              --------------------------------
      Aaron Tsai, President                       Francis E. O'Donnell, Manager
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00285-CV

Mary Cummins

v.

Bat World Sanctuary and Amanda 

Lollar

§

§

§

§

From the 352nd District Court

of Tarrant County (352-248169-10)

April 9, 2015

Per Curiam

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was error in part of the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the 

judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part. We affirm that 

portion of the trial court’s judgment awarding actual and exemplary damages to 

Appellee Amanda Lollar. We also affirm that portion of the trial court’s judgment 

ordering Appellant Mary Cummins to remove from the Internet the web pages 

and defamatory statements specified in the judgment. We reverse that part of 

the trial court’s judgment permanently enjoining Appellant Mary Cummins from 

making similar statements in the future. We also reverse that portion of the trial 

court’s judgment awarding damages to Appellee Bat World Sanctuary for breach 

of contract and attorney’s fees and render judgment that Appellee Bat World 
Sanctuary take nothing on its claims for breach of contract and for attorney’s 

fees.

It is further ordered that Appellant Mary Cummins shall bear her own costs 

of this appeal and the costs of Appellee Amanda Lollar, and that Appellee Bat 

World Sanctuary shall bear its own costs of this appeal, for which let execution 

issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM