alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                         835,009
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,785,771
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 11,784,138
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,632,902
<PP&E>                                      19,352,856
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              57,852,695
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       22,987,447
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        58,487
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,667,670
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                57,852,695
<SALES>                                     17,304,348
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,304,348
<CGS>                                       12,754,674
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               16,082,153
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             434,378
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                851,312
<INCOME-TAX>                                   333,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            518,012
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   518,012
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.4


 


SHARE CAP AGREEMENT


 


Reference is made to the Warrant Exercise Agreement (the “Agreements”),
dated as of June 6, 2018, by and between Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),
and each of the undersigned Holders, and the New Warrants issued pursuant thereto. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein
shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreements.


 


IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants contained in the Agreements,
and for good and valuable consideration the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the Holders and the Company
agree as follows:


 


Each of the undersigned Holders hereby agrees and covenants that,
notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Agreement or the New Warrant, the New Warrants shall not be exercisable for an
aggregate amount of Warrant Shares in excess of the Share Cap (defined below) until after the six-month anniversary of the date
the New Warrants were issued to the undersigned by the Company.  The “Share Cap” shall mean [_______] shares of
Common Stock of the Company.


 


HOLDERS:


 


Name of Holder:


 


Signature of Authorized Signatory of Holder:
__________________________________


 


Name of Authorized Signatory: ____________________________________________________


 


Title of Authorized Signatory: _____________________________________________________


 


Name of Holder:


 


Signature of Authorized Signatory of Holder:
__________________________________


 


Name of Authorized Signatory: ____________________________________________________


 


Title of Authorized Signatory: _____________________________________________________


 


	COMPANY:	 
	 	 
	BRAINSTORM CELL THERAPEUTICS INC. 	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:	 	 
	 	Name: 	Chaim Lebovits	 
	 	Title: 	President and Chief Executive Officer
H. Res. 272 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

May 19, 2015. 

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are 

hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the 

House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr. Emmer of 

Minnesota. 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Mr. Donovan. 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY: Mr. Donovan. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF INCOME, STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS AND BALANCE SHEET AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000018651
<NAME> CENTRAL ILLINOIS LIGHT COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      868,430
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      3,613
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         127,635
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        22,977
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,022,655
<COMMON>                                       185,661
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            147,081
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 332,742
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           22,000
<PREFERRED>                                     44,120
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           267,836
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  21,300
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   10,650
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                      2,182
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                   439
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 321,386
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,022,655
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      546,854
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            23,682
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     444,225
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     467,907
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         78,947
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             (1,398)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  77,549
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        24,082
<NET-INCOME>                                    53,467
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      3,216
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   50,251
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        39,482
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       20,024
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         111,990
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed October 20 , 2016 . 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 16
- 00352
- CR EFREN ADAME TORRES , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6 Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 006
- 85957
- 2014



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Francis, Stoddart, and Schenck Opinion by Justice Schenck A jury convicted Efren Adame Torres of theft of property val ued at $50 or more but less than $500 dollars. See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 31.03(a), (e)(2)(A) (West Supp. 2015 ). The trial court assessed punishment at confinement in the county jail for 120 days, probated for fifteen months, and a $500 fine. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which s he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 811

– 12 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro
se response. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

– 21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying duties of appellate courts and counsel in Anders cases).– 2

– We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824,
82 6

– 2 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 160352F.U05 /D avid J. Schenck/ DAVID J. SCHENCK JUSTICE– 3

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
EFREN ADAME TORRES, Appellant
No. 05

- 16

- 00352

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 006

- 85957

- 2014. Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck. Justices Francis and Stoddart participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the tr ial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered this 20th day of October, 2016.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-01-1998
<CASH>                                              95
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,866
<ALLOWANCES>                                       155
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,976
<PP&E>                                           4,631
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,179
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,143
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,478
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,643
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,143
<SALES>                                          3,802
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,802
<CGS>                                              961
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,246
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  56
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,461)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,461)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,461)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.37)
        

</TABLE>
#### Ronald CHISOM, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant, v. Charles E. “Buddy” ROEMER, III, in his capacity as Governor of the State of Louisiana, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 89-3654.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 2, 1990.

Pamela S. Karlan, Univ. of Va. School of Law, Charlottesville, Va., William P. Quigley, New Orleans, La.,. Judith Reed, Sherrilyn A. Ifell, Julius L. Chambers, New York City, Roy J. Rodney, Jr., McGlinchey, Stafford, Mintz, Cellini & Lang, and Ronald L. Wilson, New Orleans, La., C. Lani Guinier, Univ. of Pa. School of Law, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Brian C. Beckwith and Darleen M. Jacobs, New Orleans, La., for amicus curiae Supreme Court Justice for Orleans.

*188Irving Gornstein, Atty., U.S. Dept, of Justice, Appellate Sec., Civ. Rights Div., Jessica Dunsay Silver, Mark L. Gross, U.S. Dept, of Justice, Civ. Rights Div., Washington, D.C., for U.S.

Brenda Wright, Robert B. McDuff, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae Lawyers’ Com’n.

Robert G. Pugh, Shreveport, La., Kendall Vick and Eavelyn T. Brooks, Asst. Attys. Gen., La. Dept, of Justice, Moise W. Dennery, Lemle & Kelleher, and A.R. Christovich, Jr., Christovich & Kearney, New Orleans, La., for defendants-appellees.

M. Truman Woodward, Jr., Milling, Benson, Woodward, Hillyer, Pierson & Miller, New Orleans, La., for Charles E. Roemer.

Peter J. Butler, Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell, New Orleans, La., for Walter F. Marcus, Jr.

Before KING and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.*

*

 This decision is being made by a quorum. *See*28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

PER CURIAM:

The plaintiffs in this action originally claimed that defendants violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, § 2 et seq., codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 et seq. (Voting Rights Act). The district court ruled against the plaintiffs on the constitutional claims and the Voting Rights Act claims. The district court’s ruling on the constitutional claims was not appealed. Thus, there remains pending before this court an appeal of the district court’s disposition of the Voting Rights Act claims.

In view of the fact that this court, sitting en banc in *LULAC v. Clements,*914 F.2d 620 (5th Cir.1990), has overruled *Chisom v. Edwards,*839 F.2d 1056 (5th Cir.1988) *(Chisom I),*this case is remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss all claims under the Voting Rights Act for failure to state a claim upon whieh relief may be granted. *See Falcon v. General Telephone Co.,*815 F.2d 317, 319-20 (5th Cir.1987) (“[0]nce an appellate court has decided an issue in a particular case both the District Court and the Court of Appeals should be bound by that decision in any subsequent proceeding in the same case____ unless ... controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of law applicable to the issue.”) (citations omitted); *White v. Murtha,*377 F.2d 428, 431-32 (5th Cir.1967). Each party shall bear its own costs.

REMANDED with instructions. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
# C_2016202EN.01016701.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/167 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/167

---

Article 282

1.   The European Central Bank, together with the national central banks, shall constitute the European System of Central Banks (ESCB). The European Central Bank, together with the national central banks of the Member States whose currency is the euro, which constitute the Eurosystem, shall conduct the monetary policy of the Union.

2.   The ESCB shall be governed by the decision-making bodies of the European Central Bank. The primary objective of the ESCB shall be to maintain price stability. Without prejudice to that objective, it shall support the general economic policies in the Union in order to contribute to the achievement of the latter's objectives.

3.   The European Central Bank shall have legal personality. It alone may authorise the issue of the euro. It shall be independent in the exercise of its powers and in the management of its finances. Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and the governments of the Member States shall respect that independence.

4.   The European Central Bank shall adopt such measures as are necessary to carry out its tasks in accordance with Articles 127 to 133, with Article 138, and with the conditions laid down in the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB. In accordance with these same Articles, those Member States whose currency is not the euro, and their central banks, shall retain their powers in monetary matters.

5.   Within the areas falling within its responsibilities, the European Central Bank shall be consulted on all proposed Union acts, and all proposals for regulation at national level, and may give an opinion.

---
Plant Variety Protection ‐ 25 Certificates Issued on March 31, 2022

APPLICATION 

NUMBER

VARIETY NAME CROP APPLICANT / OWNER *CERTIFIED

SEED ONLY?

201800071 TLE513 LETTUCE Takii & Company, Limited No

201800183 Eileen POTATO HZPC IPR B.V. No

201800184 Waterloo POTATO HZPC IPR B.V. No

201800516 Tyson POTATO HZPC IPR B.V. No

201900002 Golden Globe POTATO NORIKA Nordring-Kartoffelzucht-und Vermehrungs-GmbH No

201900051 AAC Island Ruby POTATO Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada No

201900056 A40Z16 SOYBEAN Asociados Don Mario S.A. No

201900074 INIA Arequita POTATO INIA No

201900090 CARMINELLE POTATO IPR B.V. No

201900091 ALTHEA POTATO IPR B.V. No

201900092 SALLY POTATO IPR B.V. No

201900093 PEE WEE RUSSET POTATO IPR B.V. No

201900098 CORINNA POTATO Bohm-Nordkartoffel Agrarproduktion GmbH & Co. OHG No

201900115 Sunshine POTATO Saka Pflanzenzucht GmbH & Co. KG No

201900188 Cerata KWS POTATO Stet Holland B.V. No

201900264 Lucera POTATO Plantera Seed B.V. No

201900283 Red Dawn BEAN Trinidad/Benham Corp. No

201900284 Magnolia BEAN Trinity Genetics LLC No

201900287 Angelina POTATO Potato Seed Solutions LLC No

201900298 Elevate POTATO J.R. Simplot Company - Plant Sciences No

201900303 CROP58 POTATO The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Limited No

201900304 Andromeda BEAN ADM Edible Bean Specialties, Inc. and Kelley Bean Co. No

201900305 Virgo BEAN ADM Edible Bean Specialties, Inc. and Kelley Bean Co. No

201900355 01073288 SOYBEAN Monsanto Technology, LLC No

201900356 01073320 SOYBEAN Monsanto Technology, LLC No

* Certified seed ‐ seed which has been determined by an official seed certifying agency to conform to standards of genetic purity and identity as to 

variety,  which standards have been approved by the Secretary.

USDA, AMS, Science and Technology, Plant Variety Protection Office (202) 260‐8983 Page 1 of 1
COST OF PUBLICATION 

### Total $112.38 

# Nov 73 2015 PROOF OF PUBLICATION

THE DAILY NEWS PUBLISHING COMPANY, the Publisher ofTHE DAILY NEWS, a daily newspaper of general circulation, printed in the City ofMemphis, County ofShelby and State ofTennessee and distributed throughout Shelby County in Tennessee, and states that the hereto attached publication appeared in THE DAILY NEWS on the following dates:


### November 10, 2015

STATE OF TENNESSEE COUNTY OF SHELBY On this 

### 101b day of

### November 2015, the individual above appeared before me, personally known (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence), who, being by me duly sworn did say that she is an authorized agent of the corporation (or association) ofthe Daily News Publishing Company, that the instrument was signed and sealed on behalf ofthe corporation (or association), by authority ofits Board ofDirectors and 

### Catron J. 

### Kerr acknowledged the instrument to be the free act and deed ofthe corporation (or association) and that the corporation has no corporate seal. WITNESS my hand and Official Seal at office this 

### 101b day of

### November 2015.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 5, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 84337]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26652]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-N-0026]


Issuance of Priority Review Voucher; Rare Pediatric Disease 
Product

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the 
issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of a rare 
pediatric disease product application. The Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) authorizes FDA to award priority review 
vouchers to sponsors of approved rare pediatric disease product 
applications that meet certain criteria. FDA is required to publish 
notice of the award of priority review voucher. FDA has determined that 
XENPOZYME (olipudase alfa-rpcp), manufactured by Genzyme Corporation, 
meets the criteria for a priority review voucher.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathryn Lee, Center for Drug 
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New 
Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-1394.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is announcing the issuance of a priority 
review voucher to the sponsor of an approved rare pediatric disease 
product application. Under section 529 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 
360ff), FDA will award priority review vouchers to sponsors of approved 
rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. 
FDA has determined that XENPOZYME (olipudase alfa-rpcp), manufactured 
by Genzyme Corporation, meets the criteria for a priority review 
voucher. XENPOZYME (olipudase alfa-rpcp) is indicated for treatment of 
non-central nervous system manifestations of acid sphingomyelinase 
deficiency (ASMD) in adult and pediatric patients.
    For further information about the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority 
Review Voucher Program and for a link to the full text of section 529 
of the FD&C Act, go to http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/DevelopingProductsforRareDiseasesConditions/RarePediatricDiseasePriorityVoucherProgram/default.htm. For further 
information about XENPOZYME (olipudase alfa-rpcp), go to the 
``Drugs@FDA'' website at http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/.

    Dated: November 30, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-26652 Filed 12-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 1 7

- 6065 2 Summary Calendar

ERICA N. STEWART,

Plaintiff

− Appell ant,

v ersus
BELHAVEN UNIVERSITY , Defendant

− Appell ee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi No. 3 :16

- C V

- 74 4

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

This is an appeal only of sanctions, assessed as $100 to the plaintiff client

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILE D April 3, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-60652 Document: 00514412453 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2018No. 17

- 60652

2 and $500 to her lawyer. The question is whether the plaintiff and attorney destroyed or spoiled or failed to produce evidence, which consisted of messages stored on the plaintif f’s phone.
The district court explained the sanctions in a convincing order that found “a pattern of deception” that included a “discovery violation and false statements.” The court explained that counsel had received a letter demanding him to “preserv e and sequester” the phone. The defendant “was therefore sur

prised to learn . . . that the phone had broken and was no longer in [plaintiff’s] possession [but] had been taken . . . to a local AT&T store [where] she pur

chased a new phone.” “In her depos ition, [plaintiff] could not explain how some of the text messages were deleted from her phone before they were shared with
the EEOC.” “When [she] did search her iCloud, moreover―. . . she identified new, material, and important evidence. That . . . dire ctly contradicts [her] ear

lier sworn statement that she had produced everything to [the defendant].”
The order granting monetary sanctions is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the district court. Case: 17-60652 Document: 00514412453 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2018