alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.11
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED  REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT
 Second Amendment Company Exhibit A Exhibit A Stockholders
 RECITALS
 Registration Rights Agreement
 Amendment Purchase Agreement Promissory Notes Additional 2010 Warrants
 Amended Purchase Agreement




---



##### 



1. Amendment.
  Additional 2010 Warrants
 Warrants
 Warrants
 2. Effective Time and Remainder of Agreement.
 3. Miscellaneous.
     [Signature Pages Follow]




---



##### 



VIA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Lawrence K. CohenName:
    
    Lawrence K. CohenTitle:
    
    President and Chief Executive OfficerBAY CITY CAPITAL FUND IV, L.P.By: Bay City Capital Management IV LLCIts: General PartnerBy: Bay City Capital LLC, its managerBy:
    
    /s/ Fred CravesName:
    

Fred
CravesTitle:
    
    Managing DirectorBAY CITY CAPITAL FUND IVCO-INVESTMENT FUND, L.P.By: Bay City Capital Management IV LLCIts: General PartnerBy: Bay City Capital LLC, its managerBy:
    
    /s/ Fred CravesName:
    

Fred
CravesTitle:
    
    Managing Director
 [Signature Page to Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Registration Rights Agreement]




---



##### 



Exhibit A
 STOCKHOLDERS
 Name/Address:Bay City Capital Fund IV, L.P.Bay City Capital Fund IV Co-Investment Fund, L.P.750 Battery StreetSuite 400San Francisco, CA 94111Thomas Quertermous810 Lathrop DriveStanford, CA 94305Adeoye Olukotun125 Hopewell-Wertsville RoadHopewell, NJ 08525Douglass and Kim Given Revocable Trust133 Burns AvenueAtherton, CA 94027Lawrence Cohen10065 Broadway TerraceOakland, CA 94611Raymond Tabibiazar2150 Sterling AvenueMenlo Park, CA 94025
Exemption No. 11373

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 0060

Mr. Richard Bowden Dobbins The Dobbins Company 3827 Cliff Crest Drive Smyrna, GA 30080

Dear Mr. Dobbins :

We are reviewing your petition for amendment to your exemption (Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 0060 ) in which you seek regulatory relief to fly unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) to perform inspections and aerial data collection.

Your letter of petition states, in part, states you would like to decrease the minimum distance allowed from

non

- participat ing structures from 500 feet to 200 feet; and the ability to fly a UAS under a bridge that carries vehicles and pedestrians.

A safety case is required for these types of operations. The required components of a safety case and safety case format may be found in Order 8900.1, Volume 16, Chapter 7, Section 1, Paragraph 16

- 7

- 1

- 3.

Please submit the additional information (non

- proprietar y) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e

- mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov . If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described abo ve by March 16, 2016 . If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267

- 4549

. Sincerely, /s/ Michael J. Cameron Senior Analyst Federal Aviation Administration
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsRulemaking DocumentsPetition  for Rulemaking Dockets

# Petition for Rulemaking Dockets for 2023

subscribe to page updates
*This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.*

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, January 18, 2024

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Open Petition for Rulemaking Dockets
          - 2024
          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011
          - 2010
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2005
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1999

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, January 18, 2024
# C_2004175EN.01000401.xml

| 7.7.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case No COMP/M.3048 — SUOMEN REHU OY / KEMIRA AGRO OY / HANKKIJA-MAATALOUS OY / MOVERE OY)

(2004/C 175/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 30 January 2003, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89. The full text of the decision is available only in Finnish and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/ ) free of charge. This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/ ) free of charge. This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document number 304M3048. CELEX is the computerized documentation system of European Community law. For more information on how to access Celex, see ‘subscriber information’ links below: |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document number 304M3048. CELEX is the computerized documentation system of European Community law. For more information on how to access Celex, see ‘subscriber information’ links below:

CELEX: subscriber information

http://publications.eu.int/general/en/eulaw_en.htm

---
#### Den *ex*dem. William R. Smith v. John M. Greenlee.

Rules made by consent, after an ordei- for the removal of a cause, but before it is removed, are not ex-roneous.

An affidavit, for the removal of a cause, adjudg-ed to be sufficient

Ejectment, tried on the last Spring Circuit, at Rutherford, before DoNNEIR, Judge.

The cause was originally commenced in Buncombe, and notices were served upon *James M, Greenlee, Henry Anderson*and *Stephen Edwards,*the tenants in possession? *Greenlee*alone entered into the consent rule, and was *388made defendant. At the return term, the following affidavit was filed by *James M. Greenlee,*upon which, the cause was removed to Rutherford:

*“*The defendant swears, that he cannot have a fair and « impartial trial in this county, owing to the great prejudice existing against him; that the lessors of the *“*plaintiff are men of great influence in this county, and “ this affiant believes they will exercise their influence *“*to his prejudice.”

Immediately after the order for removal, the following entry appeared upon the record:

*“*And afterwards, to-wit, on the same day and year, *u*came *John M.*Greenlee, by &o. and by and with the *li*consent of the plaintiff’s attorney, and by and with the *“*assent of the court now here, the said *John M. Greenlee*is admitted to defend the cause in the room and stead *“*of the said *James M,*Greenlee.”

A verdict was returned for the defendant, which the plaintiff moved to set aside,

1st. Because the affidavit for the removal, was not filed by, or for the defendant of record.

2d. Because the affidavit was insufficient to warrant the removal.

3d. Because *John M. Greenlee*was improperly made a defendant, as the court had no power over the cause after the order of removal was made.

The presiding judge overruled the motion and gave judgment upon the verdict, and the plaintiff appealed:

No counsel appeared for the plaintiff.

*Badger,*for the defendant, submitted the cause without argument,

D anted, Judge,

after stating the entries above set forth, proceeded as follows:

As to the first point, it appears that *James M. Greenlee*was the defendant at *the*time he made the affidavit and when the order of removal was entered.

Upon the second point, we are of opinion, that the affidavit contained matter sufficient to justify the remo*389val of tlie cause. The record of the cause was not to be sent from Buncombe to Rutherford until the ensuing term of the Superior Court of the latter county ; the Superior Court of Buncombe could, while the cause remained there, make any orders in it by consent; this appears to have been the case with the order now complained of. Were it erroneous, the consent of the parties prevents them from objecting to it now¿ Upon looking through’ the record, we think the judgment should be affirmed.

Per Curiam. — Judgmektt aeeirmed.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsRulemaking Documents

# Rulemaking Highlights

The NRC's Rulemaking Center of Expertise is highlighting a selection of NRC rulemaking actions. This page contains a collection of short summaries that describe the recent rule action, its impact, and the efficiencies and innovations the staff applied during the rule development process. The following Highlights are published here to promote openness, transparency, and public confidence in the agency's rulemaking process and associated innovation efforts.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, August 30, 2021

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Rulemaking Dockets
          - Petition  for Rulemaking Dockets
          - Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan
          - Rulemaking Activities  by Fiscal Year
          - Rulemaking Highlights

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, August 30, 2021
#### Ovitt, Respondent, vs. Schumekosky and others, Appellants.

*September 18*

October *14, 1924.*

*Appeal and error: Order refusing to dismiss complaint: Appeal-ability.*

An order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that plaintiff is not the real party in interest is not appealable, p. 619.

Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Green Lake county: Chester A. Fowler, Circuit Judge.

*Dismissed.*

The cause was submitted for the appellants on the brief of *B. E. Van Keuren*of Oshkosh, and for the respondent on that of *John J. Wood,*attorney, and *Fred Engelbracht,*of counsel, both of Berlin.

Jones, J.

This action was brought under sec. 3186 of the Statutes to quiet title, cancel a tax deed and other deeds, and to recover damages for trespass. No bill of exceptions was settled. On entering upon the trial the trial judge announced that the validity of the tax deed would be considered before the matter of improvements made by the defendant and his good faith would be taken up. Considerable *619testimony was taken, when the court made, among others, the following" interlocutory finding:

> “The plaintiff, *Ovitt,*holds the record title to three certain descriptions of land which will be referred to herein as lots 6, 7, and 14, but the ownership and equitable title of said lands is in Mrs. Edna G. Thackaberry, and has been in her name at all times herein mentioned.”

Thereupon the defendant made a motion to dismiss the complaint for the reason that the plaintiff was not the real party in interest. This motion was denied.

It is contended by the appellant that under sec. 2605, Stats., requiring that every action must be prosecuted by the real party in interest, except as provided in sec. 2607, the action should have been dismissed as soon as the order above quoted was made. It is urged that the statute is mandatory and imperative. It is further claimed that the order is one affecting a substantial right and involves the merits of the action. It is argued by the respondent that since the court found that the plaintiff was the owner of record, he was the real party in interest and the proper-party to bring the action. It is also claimed that the objection should have been made by answer and that the fact that a third person had the equitable title did not prevent the plaintiff from maintaining the suit, and that the proper remedy of the defendant was to move that such person be made a party. The plaintiff also contends that the order is not appealable.

The last point is well taken and is ruled by several decisions of this court. *Raymond v. Keseberg,*98 Wis. 317, 73 N. W. 1010; *Gill v. Hermann,*168 Wis. 589, 171 N. W. 76; *Motowski v. People’s Dentists,*183 Wis. 477, 198 N. W. 465. This makes it unnecessary to discuss the other questions raised.

*By the Court.*— Appeal dismissed.
# Soils Tools

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Resources 
-  Soils Tools 

Select a category to see soils-related tools.

### Featured Tool

The Web Soil Survey provides agricultural producers, agencies, Technical Service Providers, and others online access to relevant soil and related information needed to make land-use and management.

**Start Web Soil Survey**

Spatial Data Tools
Find raster and vector data.

Climate Data Tools
Find soil and atmospheric climate stations and data.

Other Technical Resources Tools
Collection of guides and job aids.

Tabular Data & Query Tools
Databases and query tools.

Official Series Descriptions Tools
Search and download soil series information.

Calculator Tools
Tools to calculate soil properties from input data.

Soil Apps Tools
Interactive and innovative tools to access NRCS soils information.

Ecological Sites Tools
Links to vegetation information and the NRCS Ecological Site program.

Advanced Users Tools
Tools and information for advanced and internal users.

##   Contact Soils

Please contact us if you see something that needs to be updated, if you have any questions, or if you need accessibility assistance.
                  -    Soils Webmaster 
                  -    402-437-5499 
                  -    Soils-Webmaster@usda.gov 

## Find Your Local Service Center

    USDA Service Centers are locations where you can connect with Farm Service Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service, or Rural Development employees for your business needs. Enter your state and county below to find your local service center and agency offices. If this locator does not work in your browser, please visit offices.usda.gov.
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Access Road, Irrigation Pipeline, Irrigation Reservoir, Irrigation System-Microirrigation, Irrigation System-Sprinkler, Irrigation System-Tailwater Recovery, Irrigation Water Management, Waste Transfer, Waste Utilization, Watering Facility.

**Note:**This worksheet contains general talking points for the conservation planner to discuss with the land user.  It is the first step towards an economic or financial analysis.  The second step would include identifying a specific site for analysis at the farm or field level, editing the template for local conditions, adding units and quantities of farm inputs and outputs.  The third step in the economic analysis is to place a dollar value on as many variables as possible, put all units in the same time frame, using amortization ($/Acres/Year) or net present value ($/Acre), so benefits and costs can be compared.  The fourth and final step would be to combine several conservation practices into a conservation system, which is how most conservation practices are applied at the field level. Data for the worksheet comes from the land user, conservation planner, technical specialist and local agricultural supply vendors and contractors.  See Economics Technical Note: TN 200-ECN-1, Basic Economic Analysis Using T-Charts (August 2013) for more information.
# C_2004239EN.01002103.xml

| 25.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/21

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 8 July 2004

in Case T-136/03: Robert Charles Schochaert v Council of the European Union (1)

1

(Officials - Action for damages - Refusal of promotion - Emotional harassment - Duty of assistance)

(2004/C 239/45)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-136/03: Robert Charles Schochaert, a former official of the Council of the European Union, resident in Brussels (Belgium), represented by J.A. Martin, avocat, against Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Sims and F. Anton) — application for damages in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered by reason of the Council's repeated refusal to promote the applicant to Grade B1 and in respect of alleged emotional harassment — the Court of First Instance: P. Lindh, single Judge; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000             MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,350                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         4,890                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (8,240)                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                       0
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                      36
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0                    (36)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                    (36)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0                    (36)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT BRIAN K. FERRY, SR., DOC #R24010, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) Case No. 2D17-4097 STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed April 13, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County, Chris Helinger, Judge. Brian K. Ferry, Sr., pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KELLY, SLEET, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





I,
      Gilbert Hu, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
      Quarterly Report of AltiGen Communications, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the
      quarter ended March 31, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
      information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents
      in
      all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
      AltiGen Communications, Inc.




Date:
                May 14, 2008
            By:
            /s/
                Gilbert HuName:
            Gilbert
                HuTitle:
            Chief
                Executive Officer