alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
aeon-ex101a_23.htm



Exhibit 10.1(a)

FIRST AMENDMENT

TO

ALPHAEON CORPORATION

AMENDED AND RESTATED 2013 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

In accordance with those certain resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors and Stockholders of ALPHAEON Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), the Amended and Restated 2013 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) of the Company is hereby amended as follows:

1.Section 4.1 of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to increase the number of shares reserved for issuance under the Plan as follows:

“4.1 Shares Subject to the Plan. As of the Effective Date, there are 40,274,338 shares of Class A Common Stock available for issuance under the Plan. Of this total, 40,274,338 shares of Class A Common Stock are available for issuance pursuant to Incentive Options. For purposes of this Section 4.1, in the event that (a) all or any portion of any Award granted or offered under the Plan can no longer under any circumstances be exercised or (b) any shares of Class A Common Stock are reacquired by the Company which were initially the subject of an Award Agreement, the shares of Class A Common Stock allocable to the unexercised portion of such Award, or the shares so reacquired, shall again be available for grant or issuance under the Plan.”

2.Unless otherwise expressly provided for in this First Amendment to the Plan (the “First Amendment”), all capitalized words, phrases, or defined terms used in this First Amendment will have the same meaning ascribed to them in the Plan.

3.Except as expressly set forth in this First Amendment, there have been no other changes or modifications to the Plan, and the plan remains otherwise unchanged and in full force and effect.

4.This First Amendment shall be effective as of October 30, 2015.

I hereby certify that the Plan was duly amended and such First Amendment has been duly approved by the Board of Directors of the Company as of October 30, 2015 and such First Amendment has been duly approved by the Stockholders of the Company as of November 4, 2015.

[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank; Signature Page to Follow]

 



IN WITNESS WHEROF, the undersigned has caused this First Amendment to be executed effective as of the date set forth above.

 


	
ALPHAEON CORPORATION,

	
A Delaware corporation

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
By:
	
 
	
/s/ Robert Grant

	
Name:
	
 
	
Robert Grant

	
Title:
	
 
	
CEO




 

Signature page to First Amendment to the Plan
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER UNDERSECTION 906****OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Allan Block, hereby certify that the annual report onForm 10-K of Block Communications, Inc. (the“Registrant”) for the year ended December 31,2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Registrant.     /s/ Allan Block           Name: Allan Block     Title: Managing Director Dated: March 24, 2005
### Request for Information Av ery International Soluti ons, LLC (FAA-2015-3428) 9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA)

Dear Mr. Avery: This letter is to inform you that the following information is miss ing from your petition (Docket No. FAA

− 2015

− 3428). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administrati on (FAA) to process your p etition.

 Describe the aircraft makes, models, and types (i.e., - fixed

- wing, rotorcraft, lighter

- than

- air) for the proposed UAS operation. The descriptions shoul d include the maximum weight (incl uding payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manuals.
Please submit the additional informat ion (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov . Once your information has been submitted, pl ease also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations .gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. I f you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information de scribed above by December 1, 2015. If we do not receive the in formation, we will close the doc ket without notifying you further. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999 . FAA Office of Rulemaking Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 10:04 AM To: havery@averyinternationalsolutions.com
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA PR 22-0005

IN RE THE MOTION OF RYAN G. RUPE FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF THE STATE OF MONTANA ORDER 

## r ) rr‘r 4 -44

Ryan G. Rupe has filed a motion for admission to the Bar ofthe State ofMontana pursuant to Rule V ofthe Rules for Admission, Admission on Motion. The BarAdmissions Administrator ofthe State Bar ofMontana has informed the Court that the Commission on Character and Fitness has certified that Rupe has provided the necessary documentation and has satisfied the requirements prerequisite to admission on motion under Rule V. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that upon payment of any application fees and completion of any other processing requirements as set forth by the Bar Admissions Administrator, Ryan G. Rupe may be sworn in to the practice of law in the State of Montana. Arrangements for swearing in may be madeby contactingthe office ofthe Clerk ofthe Montana Supreme Court. The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to Petitioner and to the State Bar ofMontana. DATED this j day ofNovember, 2022. 

# 1 / ChiefJusti e



## e NOV 0 1 2022 CLIESpvven Greenwood c. 1,< of Supreme CoLI" State of Montana 11/01/2022

Case Number: PR 22-0005

# e9-3f 'Aft& Justices
IIB 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2942 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 2, 2014 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to reestablish the 

Professional Certification and Licensure Advisory Committee of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

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


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2942 RFS

1 SECTION 1. REESTABLISHMENT OF PROFESSIONAL CER2 TIFICATION AND LICENSURE ADVISORY COM3 MITTEE. 

4 (a) REESTABLISHMENT.—Section 3689(e)(5) of title 

5 38, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘Decem6 ber 31, 2006’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2019’’. 

7 (b) APPOINTMENT OF NEW MEMBERS.—In reestab8 lishing the Professional Certification and Licensure Advi9 sory Committee under subsection (e) of section 3689 of 

10 title 38, United States Code, pursuant to subsection (a), 

11 the Secretary of Veterans Affairs may appoint new mem12 bers of the Committee under paragraph (3)(A) of such 

13 subsection (e) without regard to the individuals who served 

14 as members before the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 28, 2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### ALLEN v. STATE.

No. 26444.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 20, 1953.

Ayres K. Ross, Austin, for appellant.

J. B. Kershaw, County Atty., Bastrop, and Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for carrying a pistol; the punishment a fine of $100.

Appellant waived a jury and was tried before the court.

The evidence shows without dispute that a pistol was found on the seat of appellant’s truck when he was arrested at a filling station in Bastrop, after he had driven the truck from his home near Elgin and had stopped at the station. This proof was sufficient to sustain the trial judge’s finding that appellant carried the pistol on or about his person.

The court was not bound by appellant’s explanation of his purpose in having the pistol in his truck but had the right to accept or refuse to accept appellant’s testimony as true. See Hutspeth v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 254 S.W.2d 130; French v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 246, 70 S.W.2d 1002.

It follows that it is not necessary that we determine whether appellant’s explanation was such as would, under Art. 484, P. C., if accepted as true, exempt him from prosecution for carrying a pistol.

The judgment is affirmed.
Form of Stock Option Agreement for U.S. employees



 Exhibit 10.39 
  
 Form of Stock Option Agreement for U.S. Based Employees 
  
 AMERICAN STANDARD COMPANIES INC. 
 STOCK OPTION GRANT 
 Dated as of February 1, 2006 
  
 AMERICAN STANDARD COMPANIES INC., a Delaware corporation (“Grantor”), hereby grants
to                  (“Participant”), an employee of Grantor or one of its subsidiaries, the option to purchase (“Option”), at the
exercise price set forth below, a total of              shares of Common Stock, par value $.01 per share (“Common Stock”), of the Grantor, pursuant to and subject to
the terms and conditions set forth in the Grantor’s 2002 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) and to such further terms and conditions as are set forth below. 
  

	 	•	 	Exercise Price. The exercise price applicable to the shares of Common Stock that may be purchased by the Participant pursuant to the Option is
$             per share, representing the Fair Market Value (as defined in the Plan) of the Common Stock on the date hereof. 

  

	 	•	 	Non-Qualified Stock Option. The option to purchase shares of Common Stock pursuant to the Option is granted as a “non-qualified stock option”, within the
meaning of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). 

  

	 	•	 	Vesting. Participant’s right to purchase shares of Common Stock pursuant to the Option shall vest in three equal installments on each of the first anniversaries
of the grant, unless otherwise cancelled pursuant to Section 6 of the Plan. 

  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the duly authorized officers of the Grantor named below have hereunto subscribed as of the day and year first above written. 
  

					
	 	 	AMERICAN STANDARD COMPANIES INC.
			
	Attest:	 	 	 	 




	 	 	By:	 
	 	 	 	 	Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
			
	 



	 	 	 	 
	Secretary	 	 	 	 

  
 This document constitutes part of a
prospectus covering securities that have been registered under the Securities Act of 1933.
Take notice that on January 28, 2000, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the filing, with a proposed effective date of March 1, 2000.

Columbia is making the instant filing to reflect various administrative revisions to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1 to reflect items including, but not limited to, changes to date references on various forms of service agreements and revisions to company contact information.

Columbia states further that copies of this filing have been mailed to all of its customers and affected state regulatory commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Sections 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-2655 Filed 2-4-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 203 (Thursday, October 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 62794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26826]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Executive Committee of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 
Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of the Executive Committee of the Federal Aviation 
Administration Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held November 9, 2000 at 11 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Room 1014, Washington, DC 
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regina Jones, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, 
telephone (202) 267-9822; fax (202) 267-5075; e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b4e6d1d3dddad59afedbdad1c7f4d2d5d59ad3dbc2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dc8eb9bbb5b2bdf296b3b2b9af9cbabdbdf2bbb3aa">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. II), notice is 
hereby given of a meeting of the Executive Committee to be held on 
November 9, 2000, at the Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Ave., SW., Room 1014, Washington, DC 20590. The agenda 
will include:
    <bullet> Modification to Operating Procedures
    <bullet> Nominations for General Aviation and Business Airplanes 
Assistant Chair
    <bullet> Status Report Fuel Tank Inerting working group
    Attendance is open to the interested public but will be limited to 
the space available. The public must make arrangements by November 2, 
to present oral statements at the meeting. The public may present 
written statements to the executive committee at any time by providing 
25 copies to the Executive Director, or by bringing the copies to the 
meeting.
    If you are in need of assistance or require a reasonable 
accommodation for this meeting, please contact the person listed under 
the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 11, 2000.
Anthony F. Fazio,
Executive Director, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 00-26826 Filed 10-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


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

13

- 16

- 00615

- CV

The State of Texas v. Alvaro Aguilera
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No 1 of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. CL

- 16

- 2785

- A

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. No c osts are assessed as appellant is exempt from payment.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
November 15 , 2018
EXHIBIT 10.12

           TRANSBOTICS SECURES ORDER FOR A NEW LASER GUIDED AGV SYSTEM
                         IN THE TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY

CHARLOTTE, NC - December 16, 2005 - Transbotics Corporation, (OTC BB: TNSB)
(www.transbotics.com), announced it has received an order for a new Laser Guided
Vehicle system from a customer in the transportation industry. A new fork style
AGV was chosen for its maneuverability and its ability to move various loads.
The order totals approximately $380,000.

For over 20 years Transbotics Corporation has specialized in the design,
development, support and installation of automation solutions with an emphasis
on "Tailor- Made" Automatic Guided Vehicles (AGVs). The Company is an Automation
solutions integrator that manufactures, installs and supports various automation
technology including: AGVs, conveyors, robotics, batteries, chargers, motors and
other related products.

Transbotics provides its Tailor-Made automation solutions to a variety of
industries, including automotive (tier one supplier), aerospace and defense,
food and beverage, paper and allied products, newsprint and publishing,
entertainment, microelectronics, plastics and primary metals. Transbotics'
current customers include Fortune 500 companies as well as small manufacturing
companies.

This release (including information incorporated by reference herein) may be
deemed to contain certain forward-looking statements with respect to the
financial condition, results of operation, plans, objectives, future performance
and business of the Company. These forward-looking statements involve certain
risk, including, without limitation, the uncertainties detailed in Transbotics
Corporation Securities and Exchange Commission filings.




                                  ### #### ###

Contact:
Claude Imbleau
President & CEO
(704) 362-1115 (x 200)
#### In re Nixon.

(No. 27689

Decided March 6, 1940.)

*Mr. David P. Tarbell,*prosecuting attorney, for appellant.

*Mr. S. Anselm Shelton,*for appellee.

By the Court.

This cause involves an appeal as of right from the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Brown county, Ohio, which granted a writ of *habeas corpus*freeing one Stanley Nixon from imprisonment and restraint of his liberty by one S. D. Miller, sheriff of that county.

The journal entry of the Court of Appeals shows that the cause, which was an original action therein, was heard upon the petition and the evidence. The briefs, filed in this court, recite that the cause was submitted to that court on an agreed statement of facts and set forth the alleged agreement. An examination of the record discloses that there is no bill of excep*365tions and that no agreed statement of facts was ever-filed nor finding of facts made in the court below. All that the record discloses is that the cause was submitted therein, as stated, upon the petition and the evidence. The briefs filed in this court are of course no part of the record in that court.

It follows that, since there is no error apparent on the face of the record, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
#### HALL v. STATE.

No. 22135.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 20, 1942.

R. B. Gambill, of Denton, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The offense is cattle theft; the punishment, two years’ confinement in the state penitentiary.

The motion for new trial was overruled, notice of appeal was given, and the court adjourned for the term, on the 20th day of December, 1941. No extension of the statutory time within which bills of exception might be filed was allowed. Appellant was, therefore, under the provisions of Sec. 5, Art. 760, C. C. P., limited to thirty days from and after said date within which to file his bills of exception. The bills of exception accompanying the record before us were filed long after the expiration of the thirty-day period mentioned, and cannot be considered by this court.

In the absence of bills of exception, the sole issue before this court is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.

According to the State’s testimony, three head of cattle were stolen from the party named in the indictment. Appellant’s written confession shows that he was not only a party to the theft, but that he also received a portion of the proceeds from the sale of the stolen cattle by a co-principal.

The facts support the jury’s conclusion of guilt.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
1 

### Mears, Gilbert
From: benita campbell <b_j_campbell@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 7:45 PM To: Mears, Gilbert Subject: Close TRI Loophole Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
You must stand up to the fossil fuel industry and protec t the public and the living ecosystems that sustain us. Communities' rights must take precedence over corporate righ ts to be greedy. Our present lives and future lives of our progeny depend on it. CLOSE THE TRI LOOPHOLE!
#### MONTEZ v. STATE.

No. 25799.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 7, 1952.

Reid & Reid, T. M. Reid, Abilene, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was assessed a fine of $100 for transporting beer in a dry area.

The complaint and information in this case allege that: “Jessie Osegeda Montez did then and there unlawfully Transporting Beer in a dry area, against the peace and dignity of the State.”

Of this complaint the State’s Attorney in his brief, has said: “The complaint and information are both hopelessly inadequate to charge any offense. It is respectfully recommended that a reversal, of this conviction be had and that the prosecution be ordered dismissed.” We concur in this statement.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Storage Technology Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
April 1, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Patrick J. Martin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 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 Act 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.

/s/ PATRICK J. MARTIN Patrick J. Martin
Chief Executive Officer 
May 10, 2005
#### LOGAN v. WARD, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 6, 1951.

Napier & Napier, Hazard, for petitioner.

CAMMACK, Chief Justice.

- This proceeding is'an-outgrowth of our decision in Logan v. Logan, 312 Ky. 48, 226 S.W.2d 3, 4. The petitioner, Pearlie Logan, filed a “Motion for Rule” asking this Court to order and direct the respondent, S. M. Ward, Judge of the 33rd Judicial District of Kentucky, to enforce our opinion and mandate by - entering'a judgment tendered in conformity with the opinion in the Logan case.

In reversing the judgment of the lower court, we said: “The sum of $50 a month is reasonable and it is adjudged that the appellee pay that sum to the appellant each month for her maintenance, beginning with the date of the judgment.”

The mandate was filed in the Letcher Circuit Court on October 4, 1950, and a judgment was tendered granting petitioner $50 a month from January 13, 1948, the date of the original judgment. The respondent, Judge Ward, refused to enter a judgment for maintenance from the date of the original judgment, but directed the preparation of a judgment allowing the recovery of maintenance only from October, 1950, to which *order the*petitioner objected and excepted. The petitioner then moved to set aside that order, but no action was taken on that motion. .

In Baker v. Ward, Judge, 275 Ky. 24, 120 S.W.2d 666, we were confronted with a situation identical with the case- at bar. .We-held that the “Motion for Rule” would be treated as a petition for a writ of manr damus, and we granted the writ.

Therefore, the petitioner’s motion for a rule is treated as a petition for a writ of mandamus, and the writ is granted, directing Judge Ward .to enter , a judgment awarding petitioner $50 per month, beginning with the date of the original judgment.