alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 18, 2016

No. 04-16-00602-CR

Joe GUTIERREZ, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14-11-201-CRA

Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

After we granted Appellant’s first motion for extension of time to file Appellant’s brief, 

Appellant filed a second motion for extension of time to file the briefs in these appeals. He has 

requested a reporter’s record from the plea hearing for both appeals, and he asks this court to 

grant an extension of time to file the briefs until thirty days after the supplemental reporter’s 

records are filed.

Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief will be due thirty days after the 

court reporter files the supplemental records. Any further requests for extension of time to file 

Appellant’s brief will be strongly disfavored.

We ORDER court reporter Leticia Escamilla to file the reporter’s records in appeals 

numbered 04-16-00602-CR and 04-16-00605-CR within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

If the reporter’s records are not filed with this court as ordered, any subsequent requests 

for additional time to file the records must be accompanied by a signed, written status report. 

The report must describe the transcript by day with the date, description, page counts, and 

remarks for each day. The page counts must include the total number of pages, the number of 

pages edited, proofread, and formatted into the required electronic form (including bookmarks). 

The report may describe any unusual aspects of the record. The report must describe any 

problems the court reporter reasonably believes may delay the completion of the record beyond 

the requested date. A preferred form for the status report, with an accompanying example, is 

attached to this order. 
_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 18th day of November, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 10.8



 Exhibit 10.8 
 AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO TO CLINICAL TRIAL AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO TO THE
CLINICAL TRIAL AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is effective December 1, 2009 (“Effective Date”) The General Hospital Corporation d/b/a Massachusetts General Hospital, a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of
Massachusetts with its principal place of business at 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114 (“Institution”) and CytoDyn, Inc., a publicly traded corporation organized under the laws of Colorado with its principal place of business at 1511
Third Street, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 (“Company”). 
 RECITALS 

 

	 	A.	INSTITUTION has previously entered into a Clinical Trial Agreement to perform the study protocol entitled “An observational study to determine the in-vitro
immunologic and virology activity of Cytolin,” with Company on 28 September 2009 (the “Agreement”) and amended it on October 14, 2009. 


 

	 	B.	The parties now desire to further amend the Agreement as set forth herein. 

 AGREEMENT 
 NOW, THEREFORE, INSTITUTION and Company agree as follows: 

 

	 	1.	Except as expressly modified by this First Amendment, all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. All terms used herein
shall have the same meaning as ascribed to them in the Agreement. To the extent any term or provision of this First Amendment conflicts with any term or provision of the Agreement, the terms and provisions of this First Amendment shall prevail.


  

	 	2.	Section 9.1 shall be replaced in its entirety as follows: 

 General. Company agrees to support this Study with a research grant of three hundred sixteen thousand seven hundred and fifty-five Dollars ($340,570.00), inclusive of indirect costs, 50% to be paid
upon execution of this Agreement, 25% to be paid by month three of the study, and 25% to be paid by month six of the study, all subject to the internal-controls division of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. 

 

	 	3.	This Amendment shall be made part of the Agreement and attached thereto. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the last date written below. The Effective Date of this Amendment shall be December 1, 2009. 








			
	READ and ACKNOWLEDGED
	
	 /s/ Eric Rosenberg, M.D.

	Eric Rosenberg, M.D.
	
	ACCEPTED and AGREED:
		
		 	The General Hospital Corporation
		
		 	 /s/ Jason McLaren

		 	 Jason McLaren, J.D., Pharm.D.

Agreement Associate

		
		 	Date: 12/14/09
		
		 	CytoDyn, Inc.
		
		 	 /s/ Allen D. Allen

		 	 Allen D. Allen
 Chief
Executive Officer

		
		 	Date: December 1, 2009
P0-18 

(7'*""8) •• 

REF ID:A36246 • 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Henry B. f1tauf'ter 

Army security Agency 

The Pentagon 

Washington 25, D. c. 

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 

KD WASHINGTON . 

Jan. 12, 1<)4.9 

Applicant Williwn F. Fr1 edman 

Serial No. 47b,193 

Filed ················ Maroh 6, 1943 

For -----------·-·--·--- System for Enoiphering Facsimile 

Div. 16 

In this case your power of attorney has been accepted. 

Revoking power of attorney 

to 

Harry M. Saragov 1 tz f 

La.Jrrenoe Glassman 

o/o The Chief Signal 

gal Division 

• 

Very truly yours, 

J..a..u• • .... • ""~· • '/"' .,_ .. ""'(. 

Commissioner of Patents. 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 07-22-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 
PO-aa 

(7-2&"'8) 

Applicant 

Serial No. 

, 

' • REF ID:A362462 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 

Kl> WASHINGTON 

taI1 i:- ict n c; . • .. • ,,,. ;,.. 

Willi Bill r. Jtr1 edrllUl 

471:~,193 

Filed ---------------- l::aroh 6. 1~*43 

For -------------······- ~y&tom for Enoiphoring ?neaimile 

uiv. lG 

In this case your power of attorney has been n9'd· revoked. 

Very truly yours, 

J..o..cc•, •·•· • "rJ:t.·.,...1 ..... ..t(. 

Commissioner or Patents. 

Revoking power or attorney 

to
Exhibit 10.2

July 27, 2009

Patrick E. Keefe
100 E. RiverCenter Blvd.
Suite 1600
Covington, KY 41011

Re:     Temporary
Salary Reduction Program

Dear Patrick:

As
you know, Omnicare is implementing a temporary salary reduction program. During
the period of Omnicares temporary salary reduction program, your regular base
salary will be reduced by five percent (5%) from its current level. This
reduction in your regular base salary will become effective as of July 16,
2009.

The
salary reduction does not constitute a breach of, or a failure by Omnicare or
any of its affiliates to observe or perform any of their obligations under,
your employment agreement with Omnicare, dated March 4, 1993 (the Employment
Agreement) or any other agreement you may have with Omnicare or any of its
affiliates. The salary reduction will have no effect on the validity or
enforceability of any provision of the Employment Agreement or any other
agreement that you may have with Omnicare or any of its affiliates.
Notwithstanding anything in this letter to the contrary, for purposes of
determining (i) the severance payable pursuant to Section 3.4 of the Employment
Agreement, (ii) the amount of compensation under the Excess Pension Benefit
portion of the Excess Benefit Plan and the Excess Savings Benefit portion of
the Excess Benefit Plan and (iii) your benefits under any other employee
benefit plan of Omnicare or any of its affiliates, your base salary shall be
determined without application of the salary reduction set forth above.

Nothing
in this letter constitutes an admission by Omnicare or any of its affiliates
that your consent is required to reduce your regular base salary under the
terms of the Employment Agreement or otherwise. If and to the extent necessary,
however, this letter modifies the Employment Agreement to reflect the foregoing
temporary salary reduction.

---



Please
execute and return this letter to show your acknowledgment of and agreement to
the foregoing. We appreciate your efforts on behalf of Omnicare.

| |                    
| | -------------------
| | Sincerely,         
| |                    
| | /s/ Mark G. Kobasuk
| |                    
| | Mark G.
 Kobasuk   

Agreed and
accepted:

/s/ Patrick E.
Keefe
Employee
Printed Name: Patrick E. Keefe
Date: July 27, 2009

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

          Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
           pursuant to Section 9067 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Summit Bancshares, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kikuo
Nakahara, CFO 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:

     3.  To the best of my knowledge, the report fully complies with the
         requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
         Act of 1934; and

     4.  To the best of my knowledge, the information contained in the report
         fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
         operating results of the Company.

                                                /s/ Kikuo Nakahara
                                                ------------------
                                                Kikuo Nakahara
                                                Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Filed by OTC Filings Inc. - www.otcedgar.com - 1-866-832-FILE(3453) -GENUFOOD ENERGY ENZYMES CORP. - Exhibit 10.5
99-362.

#### Earley v. Keenan.

Cuyahoga App. No. 75412. Reported at 85 Ohio St.3d 1486, 709 N.E.2d 1214. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
| 2. | Based                on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement                of a                material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make                the                statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements                were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this                report; |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3. | Based                on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information                included in this report, fairly present in all material respects                the                financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the                registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this                report; |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 4. | The                registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for                establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as                defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant                and have: |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 5. | The                registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our                most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,                to                the registrant’s independent registered public accountants and the audit                committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing                the equivalent functions): |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
exv10w3






Exhibit 10.3




IDEC PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION

1993 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS STOCK OPTION PLAN

(Amended and Restated through February 19, 2003)



Pursuant to Section VIII of the Idec Pharmaceuticals Corporation 1993 Non-Employee Directors Stock
Option Plan (the “Plan”), Biogen Idec Inc. amends the Plan as follows:



1. Section II is amended, effective as of June 1, 2011, to include the following definition:




     “For Cause: any act of: (i) fraud or intentional misrepresentation, or (ii) embezzlement,
misappropriation or conversion of assets or opportunities of the Corporation or any affiliate. The
determination of the Board, or the committee appointed to administer the Plan, as to the existence
of circumstances warranting a termination For Cause shall be conclusive.”


2. Section VI.G. is amended, effective as of June 1, 2011, to read in its entirety as follows:




     1. In the event that the Optionee’s Board service shall terminate for any reason other than
For Cause, any option grant held by the Optionee, to the extent that it is or becomes vested at the
time of such termination, shall remain exercisable by the Optionee (or, in the event of the
Optionee’s death while such Option is still outstanding, by the Optionee’s legal representatives,
heirs or legatees) for the three-year period following such termination, but in no event following
the expiration of the Option term.



     2. In the event of the termination of the Optionee’s Board service For Cause, each outstanding
option grant held by the Optionee shall be cancelled as of the commencement of business on the date
of such termination.”
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             499
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     499
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          858,579
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,250
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,504,460
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  (858,080)
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,870
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,870
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,870
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        
<FN>
Peachtree FiberOptics, Inc. uses the liquidation basis of accounting.
</FN>


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 99.2**

******Auditors' Report to the Board of Directors on Financial Statement Schedules**

Our audits of the consolidated financial statements referred to in our report to the
shareholders dated January 26, 2001 appearing in the 2000 Annual Report to
Shareholders of Corel Corporation (which report and consolidated financial statements
are incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K) also included an audit
of the financial statement schedule II listed in Item 14(a)2 of this Form 10-K.  In our
opinion, this financial statement schedule represents fairly, in all material respects, the
information set forth therein when read in conjunction with the related consolidated
financial statements.

/s/ *PricewaterhouseCoopers* LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Ottawa, Canada

Chartered Accountants January 26, 2001
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 99.1

                                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 North Fork Bancorporation, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John
Adam Kanas, 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)
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 result of operations of the
Company.



/S/ John Adam Kanas
-------------------
John Adam Kanas
Chief Executive Officer
August 6, 2002

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### In the Matter of Jake Bello, Ph.D., et al., Respondents-Appellants, v Roswell Park Cancer Institute et al., Appellants-Respondents.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[773 NYS2d 730]

Appeal and cross appeal from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John A. Michalek, J.), entered September 26, 2003 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The amended judgment, inter alia, granted the petition for reinstatement of petitioners to their reclassified positions and awarded them back pay.

It is hereby ordered that the amended judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by vacating those parts reinstating petitioners retroactively either to the reclassification date or to the original date of hire and providing that petitioners are reinstated effective September 26, 2003 and awarded back pay at their respective rates of pay as of their respective termination dates and as modified the amended judgment is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondents appeal and petitioners cross-appeal from an amended judgment that, inter alia, reinstated petitioners to their respective reclassified positions and awarded them back pay. Petitioners are research scientists who were determined by Supreme Court to have been wrongfully terminated in violation of their seniority rights (see Civil Service Law § 80-a).

We reject respondents’ contention that petitioners should have been reinstated to their former job titles (see Civil Service Law § 77). As the court properly determined, the duties and responsibilities of the abolished titles are substantially “similar [to] or the same” as the reclassified titles, and thus we agree *1018with petitioners that there is such a similarity between the abolished titles and the reclassified titles as to entitle them to reinstatement to the reclassified titles *(see e.g. Matter of McCanless v Brieant,*19 AD2d 736, 737 [1963]). The court erred, however, in reinstating petitioners retroactively, either to the reclassification date or to the original date of hire. Petitioners were reinstated when the court by its amended judgment restored petitioners to their positions *(see generally Matter of Department of Personnel of City of N.Y. v New York Civ. Serv. Commn.,*180 AD2d 449 [1992], *lv denied*80 NY2d 755 [1992]). Thus, we modify the amended judgment accordingly.

The court further erred in awarding petitioners back pay as of their respective dates of hire rather than their respective termination dates *(see*Civil Service Law § 77). Because they were improperly terminated, petitioners are entitled to an award of back pay based on their salaries at the time of termination “without any deduction for amounts [they] may have earned before [they were] restored to [their] position[s]” *(Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v Brookhaven-Comsewogue Union Free School Dist.,*87 NY2d 868, 870 [1995]; *see Civil Service Law*§ 77). We therefore further modify the amended judgment accordingly.

We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions and conclude that they lack merit. Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Gorski, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.