alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
10.33


 


ADVANCED
POWER TECHNOLOGY, INC.


SUMMARY OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR
COMPENSATION


 


 


Cash Compensation


 


Directors who are not employees of Advanced Power Technology, Inc. are
paid cash compensation as follows:


 


	
  Fee Type

  	
   

  	
  Role

  	
   

  	
  Compensation

  	
   

  
	
  Annual Retainer

  	
   

  	
  Board Member

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,000

  	
   

  
	
  Board Meeting Attendance

  	
   

  	
  Board Member

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,000

  	
   

  
	
  Committee Meeting Attendance

  	
   

  	
  Audit Committee Chair

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,500

  	
   

  
	
  Committee Meeting Attendance

  	
   

  	
  Audit Committee Member

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,000

  	
   

  
	
  Committee Meeting Attendance

  	
   

  	
  Compensation Committee
  Chair

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  750

  	
   

  
	
  Committee Meeting Attendance

  	
   

  	
  Compensation Committee
  Member

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  500

  	
   

  
	
  Committee Meeting Attendance

  	
   

  	
  Nominating Committee Chair

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  750

  	
   

  
	
  Committee Meeting Attendance

  	
   

  	
  Nominating Committee
  Member

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  500

  	
   

  



 


Directors are reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred for board and
committee meeting attendance.


 


Stock Compensation


 


Non-employee directors participate in Advanced Power Technology, Inc.’s
1995 Stock Option Plan and the 2005 Equity Incentive Plan.  Non-employee directors receive options to
purchase Advanced Power Technology, Inc.’s common stock as follows:


 


	
  Type of Grant

  	
   

  	
  Date of Grant

  	
   

  	
  Number of Shares

  	
   

  	
  Exercise Price

  	
   

  	
  Vesting Schedule(1)

  	
   

  
	
  Initial Option

  Grant

  	
   

  	
  Date of initial

  election to board

  	
   

  	
  20,000

  	
   

  	
  Fair market value

  of common stock

  on date of grant

  	
   

  	
  50%
  per year

  	
   

  
	
  Annual Board

  Member Grant

  	
   

  	
  August 1st of

  each year

  	
   

  	
  5,000

  	
   

  	
  Fair market value

  of common stock

  on date of grant

  	
   

  	
  50%
  per year

  	
   

  
	
  Annual

  Committee

  Member Grant

  	
   

  	
  August 1st of

  each year

  	
   

  	
  2,000

  	
   

  	
  Fair market value

  of common stock

  on date of grant

  	
   

  	
  50%
  per year

  	
   

  











(1)  Options granted expire upon
the earlier of a) 90 days after the optionee ceases to be a director of Advanced
Power Technology, Inc. or b) 10 years from the date of grant.
H. R. 4574 

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 108 West 

Schick Road in Bloomingdale, Illinois, as the ‘‘Bloomingdale Veterans Memorial 

Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. BLOOMINGDALE VETERANS MEMORIAL POST OFFICE 

BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 108 West Schick Road in Bloomingdale, Illinois, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Bloomingdale Veterans 

Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Bloomingdale Veterans Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Exhibit 21
                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant


1.   Western  Energy  Management,  Inc.,  is a  Delaware  corporation  and  is a
     wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.

2.   Onsite/TCC  Corp.  ("Onsite/TCC")  is a  Delaware  corporation  and  was  a
     wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company until February 1997.

3.   Television City Cogen, L.P. ("TCC"),  is a California Limited  Partnership.
     The Company,  directly or indirectly through  Onsite/TCC,  owned all of the
     general and limited partnership interests in TCC until February 1997.

4.   Onsite Business  Services,  Inc. ("OBS"),  is a Kansas corporation and is a
     wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.

5.   Onsite/Mid-States,  Inc.,  is a Kansas  corporation  and is a  wholly-owned
     subsidiary of OBS.

6.   SYCOM ONSITE  Corporation is a Delaware  corporation  and is a wholly-owned
     subsidiary of the Company.

7.   Lighting Technology  Services,  Inc., is a California  corporation and is a
     wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.

8.   Onsite  Energy  de  Panama,  S.A.  is a  Panamanian  corporation  and  is a
     wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Board of Trustees MID-ATLANTIC REALTY TRUST:

We consent to  incorporation  by reference  in the  registration  statements  of
Mid-Atlantic  Realty  Trust on Form  S-3  (File  Nos.  33-66386,  333-20813  and
333-59061) and Form S-8 (File Nos.  333-12161 and 333-56885) of our report dated
February 11, 2000,  relating to the consolidated  balance sheets of Mid-Atlantic
Realty Trust and  subsidiaries  as of December 31, 1999,  and 1998,  the related
consolidated  statements of operations,  shareholders' equity and cash flows for
each of the years in the  three-year  period  ended  December  31,  1999 and the
related financial statement  schedule,  which report appears in the December 31,
1999 annual report on Form 10-K of Mid-Atlantic Realty Trust.

                                               KPMG LLP


Baltimore, MD
March 21, 2000

<PAGE>
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**

July 26, 2005

U. S. Securities andExchange Commission450 Fifth Street, N. W.Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

The certification set forth below is being submitted tothe Securities and Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complying withSection 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code. Thiscertification is not to be deemed to be filed pursuant to the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and does not constitute a part of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q(the “Report”) accompanying this letter and is not to be incorporated byreference into any filing, whether made before or after the date hereof,regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

I, J. WilliamHolden, III, the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ofMirant Americas Generation, LLC (the “Company”), certify that, subject to thequalifications noted below, to the best of my knowledge:

1.                the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Mirant Americas Generation,LLC.
| Name:  |     | /s/ J. WILLIAM  HOLDEN, III                    |   |   |
|--------|----------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   | * * | *Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer* |   |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Mirant Americas Generation, LLC andwill be retained by Mirant Americas Generation, LLC and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
#### GIVENS v. WESTERN PAVING CO.

No. 35394.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Sept. 22, 1953.

*451Albert D. Lynn, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Twyford, Smith & Crowe, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

JOHNSON,. Vice Chief Justice.

The plaintiff in error complains of the judgment of the trial court in a jury-waived civil action denying him recovery in his action wherein he sought a judgment to reimburse him the expenses of having to repave a street in a subdivision he was developing in Oklahoma City. He had contracted with the Western Paving Company to install a rock asphalt street surfacing on some streets in the addition, which the paving company did in December, 1948, and allegedly breached its agreement in that the surfacing was inadequate, insufficient and was installed in an unworkmanship manner so that it wholly disintegrated and washed away three weeks later when a heavy sleet and snow fell and melted, requiring it to be resurfaced or repaved.

The defendant filed a cross-petition seeking to recover the balance due under the contract. It contended that the surfacing disintegrated and washed away -because the gravel base which had been prepared by plaintiff in error was insufficient. On the other hand, plaintiff contended that irrespective of the sufficiency of the base the surfacing washed away before the street was ever used.

Plaintiff in error takes the position that the general finding and judgment of the court against him and in favor of the paving company on its cross-petition is contrary to the evidence and fundamentally wrong.

In jury-waived civil actions trial court’s findings have force and effect of the jury’s verdict and when finding is general it is finding of every specific thing necessary to be found sustaining general judgment and such judgment will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence óf legal errors, if there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to support the trial court’s conclusion. The credibility of the various witnesses and weight and value to be given to their testimony is for the jury or for the trial court on waiver of a jury, and conclusions there reached will not be disturbed on appeal, un*452less appearing clearly to be based upon caprice or to be without any reasonable foundation. Lowe v. Hickory, 176 Okl. 426, 55 P.2d 769.

We have carefully considered the whole record and 'all the evidence pertaining to the issues and find the evidence ample to sustain the judgment.

Affirmed.
| Exhibit      21.1   | Subsidiaries of Astoria      Financial Corporation |
|-------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|

|                                                              | Jurisdiction of      Incorporation |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
| Subsidiaries      of Astoria Financial Corporation                |                               |
|                                                              |                               |
| Astoria      Federal Savings and Loan Association                 |                               |
| a/k/a      Astoria Federal Savings or Astoria Federal             | United      States                 |
| Astoria      Capital Trust I                                      | Delaware                           |
| AF      Insurance Agency, Inc.                                    | New      York                      |
|                                                              |                               |
| Subsidiaries      of Astoria Federal Savings and Loan Association |
|                                                              |                               |
| AF      Agency, Inc.                                              | New      York                      |
| Astoria      Federal Savings and Loan Association                 |                               |
| Revocable      Grantor Trust                                      | New      York                      |
| Astoria      Federal Mortgage Corp.                               | New      York                      |
| Fidata      Service Corp.                                         | New      York                      |
| Marcus      I Inc.                                                | New      York                      |
| Suffco      Service Corporation                                   | New      York                      |

----
#### Guy T. HELVERING, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Petitioner, v. Edward MALLINCKRODT, Jr., et al., Trustees, etc.

No. 11521.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

July 8, 1939.

J. P. Wenchel, Chief Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and Claude R. Marshall, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Daniel N. Kirby and Harry W. Kroeger, both of St. Louis, Mo., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petition to review decision of United States Board of Tax Appeals dismissed without costs to either party in this court, on motion of petitioner.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4721 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4721

To enact into law a framework for deciding whether certain projectiles 
   are ``primarily intended for sporting purposes'' for purposes of 
   determining whether the projectiles are armor piercing ammunition.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 21, 2017

Mr. Engel (for himself, Mr. Vargas, Mrs. Watson Coleman, Mr. Meeks, Ms. 
  Speier, Mr. Grijalva, and Mr. Cohen) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To enact into law a framework for deciding whether certain projectiles 
   are ``primarily intended for sporting purposes'' for purposes of 
   determining whether the projectiles are armor piercing ammunition.

    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 ``Armor-Piercing Bullets Act of 
2017''.

SEC. 2. FRAMEWORK FOR DECIDING WHETHER CERTAIN PROJECTILES ARE 
              ``PRIMARILY INTENDED FOR SPORTING PURPOSES'' FOR PURPOSES 
              OF DETERMINING WHETHER THE PROJECTILES ARE ARMOR PIERCING 
              AMMUNITION.

    Section 921(a)(17) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
    ``(D)(i) For purposes of subparagraph (C), a .22 caliber projectile 
that otherwise would be armor piercing ammunition shall be considered 
to be primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes if the 
projectile weighs 40 grains or less and is loaded into a rimfire 
cartridge.
    ``(ii)(I)(aa) Except as provided in clause (i), a projectile that 
otherwise would be armor piercing ammunition shall, for purposes of 
subparagraph (C), be considered to be primarily intended to be used for 
sporting purpose if the projectile is loaded into a cartridge for which 
the only handgun that is readily available in the ordinary channels of 
commercial trade is a single shot handgun, subject to subclause (II).
    ``(bb) In subclause (aa), the term `single shot handgun' means a 
break-open or bolt action handgun that can accept only a single 
cartridge manually, and does not accept or use a magazine or other 
ammunition feeding device, but does not include a pocket pistol or 
derringer-type firearm.
    ``(II) For purposes of subparagraph (C), the Attorney General may 
treat a projectile as not primarily intended to be used for sporting 
purposes if substantial evidence exists that the projectile is not 
primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.''.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR EN BANC RECONSIDERATION

Appellate case name: In re Probir K. Bondyopadhyay and Madhuri Bondyopadhyay

Appellate case number: 01-22-00427-CV

Trial court case number: 2021-43287

Trial court: 157th District Court

Date motion filed: July 8, 2022

Party filing motion: Relators

It is ordered that the motion for en banc reconsideration is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

49.7. All pending motions are overruled as moot.

Judge’s signature: _____/s/ Sherry Radack______

Acting for the Court

En banc Court consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Kelly, Goodman, Landau, Hightower, 

Countiss, Rivas-Molloy, Guerra, and Farris.

Date: ____August 2, 2022_____
# Marshall - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Northeast Mississippi Planning and Development District Executive Director Sharon Gardner Email &#x73;g&#x61;&#114;&#x64;&#110;&#x65;&#x72;&#64;&#x6e;&#101;&#x6d;&#112;&#x64;&#100;&#46;&#x63;&#111;&#x6d;The post Northeast Mississippi Planning and Development District appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
Exhibit 4.14


 


SECOND AMENDMENT


TO


CAPRICOR THERAPEUTICS, INC.


2012 RESTATED EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN


(Adopted September 8, 2014)


 


Capricor Therapeutics,
Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Capricor Therapeutics, Inc. 2012 Restated Equity Incentive Plan, effective
as of November 13, 2012 and as amended to date (collectively, the “Plan”), and, pursuant to Section 17
of the Plan, the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) may at any time amend, alter, suspend
or terminate the Plan.


 


The
Plan is hereby amended as follows:


 


		1.	Section 3(a) of the Plan is amended and restated in its entirety as follows:



 


“Stock
Subject to the Plan. Subject to the provisions of Section 12 of the Plan, the maximum aggregate number of Shares that may be
subject to Awards and sold under the Plan, when combined with the number of Shares that may be subject to Awards and sold under
the Former Plan, is 2,000,000 Shares. The Shares may be authorized but unissued, or reacquired Common Stock. No one Participant
may be granted options with respect to more than 1,000,000 Shares in any one calendar year. In addition, no one Participant may
be granted Stock Appreciation Rights with respect to more than 1,000,000 Shares in any one calendar year. No more than 2,000,000
shares may be made subject to Incentive Stock Option grants.”


 


		2.	Section 4(a)(i) of the Plan is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:



 


“Multiple
Administrative Bodies. Different Committees with respect to different groups of Service Providers may administer the Plan.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, Award grants to any listed officer of the Company will be made by a committee consisting
solely of two or more outside directors (as defined under Code Section 162(m) regulations), which shall be the “Committee”
with respect to such grants.”


 


		3.	The modifications set forth above shall not affect any other provisions of the Plan.



 


[Signature provided on following page.]


 




    	 	 	 



     


    

 


In
Witness Whereof, the undersigned adopts this Second Amendment to the Plan on behalf of the Company as of the date first
written above.


 


	 	CAPRICOR THERAPEUTICS, INC.
	 	 
	 	/s/ Linda Marbán, Ph.D.
	 	By: Linda Marbán, Ph.D.
	 	Title: Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 4 (Friday, January 5, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-00021]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED


Procurement List; Proposed Deletions

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled.

ACTION: Proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

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

SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing to delete product(s) from the 
Procurement List that were furnished by nonprofit agencies employing 
persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before: February 04, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled, 355 E Street, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information or to submit 
comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 785-6404 or 
email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#11525c4554577475437476515073787d7865685e7f743f767e67"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4c0f0118090a29281e292b0c0d2e2520253835032229622b233a">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published pursuant to 41 
U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide 
interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed 
actions.

Deletions

    The following product(s) are proposed for deletion from the 
Procurement List:

Product(s)

NSN(s)--Product Name(s):
    4730-00-470-6625--Kit, Brass Fittings, 88 Automotive Types, 430 
Pieces
Designated Source of Supply: The Opportunity Center Easter Seal 
Facility--The Ala ES Soc, Inc., Anniston, AL
Contracting Activity: DLA LAND AND MARITIME SUPPLIER, COLUMBUS, OH

NSN(s)--Product Name(s):
    6515-01-576-8837--Combat Arms Ear Plug, Single Ended, Size 
Small, BX/50 Pairs
    6515-01-576-8861--Combat Arms Ear Plug, Single Ended, Size 
Medium, BX/50 Pairs
    6515-01-576-8869--Combat Arms Ear Plug, Single Ended, Size 
Large, BX/50 Pairs
    6515-00-SAM-0013--Combat Arms Ear Plug, Single Ended, Size 
Small, PR
    6515-00-SAM-0014--Combat Arms Ear Plug, Single Ended, Size 
Medium, PR
    6515-00-SAM-0015--Combat Arms Ear Plug, Single Ended, Size 
Large, PR
    6515-01-686-9817--Combat Arms 4.1 Ear Plug, Single Ended, Size 
Small, BX/50
    6515-01-686-9808--Combat Arms 4.1 Ear Plug, Single Ended Size 
Medium, BX/50
    6515-01-686-9804--Combat Arms 4.1 Ear Plug, Single Ended Size 
Large, BX/50
Designated Source of Supply: Access: Supports for Living Inc., 
Middletown, NY
Contracting Activity: DLA TROOP SUPPORT, PHILADELPHIA, PA

Michael R. Jurkowski,
Acting Director, Business Operations.
[FR Doc. 2024-00021 Filed 1-4-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>