alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE

V. I.D. # 1204007680

TARIQ MARINEY,

Defendant.

Submitted: August 23, 2016
Decided: November 16, 2016

ORDER DENYING TARIQ MARINEY’S MOTION
FOR MODIFICATION OF SENTENCE

This 16th day of November, 2016, upon consideration of the Motion for
Modification of Sentence (the “Motion”) filed by Tariq Mariney, the record in this
matter, and the applicable legal authority, including Rule 35 of the Superior Court
Rules of Criminal Procedure (“Rule 35”), it appears to the Court that:

1. On June 22, 2016, Mariney was found in violation of probation for the
fourth time and was sentenced to four years, seven months at Level V, suspended
immediately for six months at Level IV, with no probation to follow. The
sentencing order specified that Mariney was to serve the Level IV portion of his

sentence at the VOP Center.' The sentence was effective June 7, 2016, giving

" See State v. Mariney, ID No. 1204007680 (Del. Super. June 22, 2016) (SENTENCING
ORDER).


Mariney credit for the days he had served while being held on the violation of
probation.

2. Mariney filed a letter dated August 17, 2016, suggesting that he did
not receive sufficient credit for the time he served before he was sentenced for
violating probation. Confusingly, Mariney states: “You told me I would receive
time served for the days I have already completed. But I’ve noticed I only
received 12 days (because the courts give out 2 days for every month).” Mariney
appears to be conflating good time credit and credit for time served. By dating his
sentence from June 7, 2016, the Court gave Mariney credit for each day he served
before his violation of probation hearing. The issue of good time credit is a
separate statutory mechanism within the control of the Department of Correction.
There is no indication in the record regarding Mariney’s entitlement to statutory or
meritorious good time credit.

3. Mariney’s letter also seeks to modify where he serves the Level IV
portion of his sentence. Mariney seeks classification to “work release” because he
feels obtaining a job would be beneficial to him. Mariney’s motion to modify his
sentence is timely under Rule 35, but does not provide a compelling basis for
modification. Notably, Mariney failed to look for a job while serving the Level III

probation he violated, despite efforts by his probation officer to encourage him to


do so. Given the short period of time remaining on Mariney’s sentence, modifying

the Level IV portion of his sentence would not be productive in my view.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Mariney’s Motion for

Modification of Sentence is DENIED.

seGrow, Judge

bigai

Original to Prothonotary
ce: Joseph S. Grubb, Deputy Attorney General
Tariq Mariney, pro se (SBI No. 00627332)
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 Unigene Laboratories, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Warren P.
Levy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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/ Warren P. Levy     
|Warren P. Levy         
|Chief Executive Officer
|August 10, 2009        

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Unigene
Laboratories, Inc. and will be retained by Unigene Laboratories, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
99-502.

#### Soc. Natl. Bank v. Byrd.

Franklin App. No. 98AP-1335. Reported at 85 Ohio St.3d 1496, 710 N.E.2d 716. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Resnick, J., not participating.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE UNIFRAX
CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES  CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1998
AND THEIR CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                       1,000
       
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                43
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     13,036
<ALLOWANCES>                                         708
<INVENTORY>                                       10,343
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  26,053
<PP&E>                                            74,363
<DEPRECIATION>                                    37,656
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    88,654
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             21,195
<BONDS>                                          105,950
<COMMON>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                      (42,124)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      88,654
<SALES>                                           85,499
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  85,499
<CGS>                                             43,760
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     43,760
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     531
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                11,988
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    6,350
<INCOME-TAX>                                       2,305
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                4,045
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                       4,045
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0
        


</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 11, 2021

No. 04-21-00371-CV

Veronica CUELLAR and Eduardo Cisneros,

Appellants

v.

Sunita PUNJABI,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CV02244

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an appeal in a forcible detainer action in which the clerk’s record shows the 

county court at law signed a default judgment of possession in favor of appellee on August 25, 

2021. The clerk’s record also shows the county clerk subsequently issued a writ of possession to 

enforce the judgment. The supplemental clerk’s record shows the writ of possession was 

executed and the property was “turned over to [appellee]” on September 10, 2021. Neither the 

clerk’s record nor the supplemental clerk’s record shows that appellants requested or paid a bond 

to supersede the judgment. See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.007 (“A judgment of a county court 

may not under any circumstances be stayed pending appeal unless, within 10 days of the signing 

of the judgment, the appellant files a supersedeas bond in an amount set by the county court.”).

The only issue in a forcible detainer action is the right to actual possession of the 

property. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.3(e); Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of the City of San Antonio, 198 

S.W.3d 782, 785 (Tex. 2006); see also TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. §§ 24.001–.002. A judgment of 

possession in such an action determines only the right to immediate possession and is not a final 

determination of whether an eviction is wrongful. Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 787. When an 

appellant fails to file a supersedeas bond in the amount set by the county court at law, the 

judgment may be enforced and a writ of possession may be executed, evicting the defendant 

from the property. See TEX. PROP. CODE § 24.007; TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.13; Marshall, 198 S.W.3d 

at 786. If a forcible detainer defendant fails to supersede the judgment and loses possession of 

the property, the appeal is moot unless the forcible detainer defendant (1) timely and clearly 

expressed his intent to appeal and (2) asserted “a potentially meritorious claim of right to current, 

actual possession of the [property].” See Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 786–87.
Because the record appears to show that appellants did not request or pay a supersedeas 

bond, that the writ of execution was subsequently executed, and that appellee has taken 

possession of the property, this appeal may be moot. We therefore ORDER appellants to file a 

written response by October 21, 2021 explaining: (1) whether the writ of possession was 

executed; and (2) why this appeal should not be dismissed as moot.

All other appellate deadlines are suspended until further order of this court.

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

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

court on this 11th day of October, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2299 

AN ACT 

To modify the age requirement for the Student Incentive 

Payment Program of the State maritime academies. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 2299 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Changing Age-Deter3 mined Eligibility To Student Incentive Payments Act’’ or 

4 the ‘‘CADETS Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. AGE REQUIREMENT FOR THE STUDENT INCENTIVE 

6 PAYMENT PROGRAM OF THE STATE MARI7 TIME ACADEMIES. 

8 Section 51509 of title 46, United States Code, is 

9 amended by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(i) AGE REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may make 

11 an agreement under this section only with a qualified stu12 dent who will meet the age requirement for enlistment in 

13 the Navy Reserve at the time of graduation from the acad14 emy.’’. 

Passed the Senate March 8 (legislative day, March 

7), 2022. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2299 

AN ACT 

To modify the age requirement for the Student Inacademies. centive Payment Program of the State maritime
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO
THE

ADIAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

2017 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN


 


This
amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Adial Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2017 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”),
is hereby adopted this day of August 14, 2021, by the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Adial Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(the “Company”). All capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings
set forth in the Plan.


 


WITNESSETH:


 


WHEREAS,
the Company adopted the Plan for the purposes set forth therein; and


 


WHEREAS,
pursuant to Section 15 of the Plan, the Board of Directors has the right to amend the Plan with respect to certain matters, provided
that any material increase in the number of Shares available under the Plan shall be subject to stockholder approval; and


 


WHEREAS,
the Board of Directors has approved and authorized this Amendment to the Plan and has recommended that the stockholders of the Company
approve this Amendment; and


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Plan is hereby amended, subject to and effective as of the date of stockholder approval hereof,
in the following particulars:


 


1.      Section
4(a) of the Plan is hereby amended by increasing the share references in such section from 5,500,000 to 7,500,000, so that Section 4(a)
reads in its entirety as follows:


 


“(a)
Shares Available for Awards. The maximum aggregate number of shares of Company Stock reserved for issuance under the Plan (all
of which may be granted as Incentive Stock Options) shall be Seven Million Five Hundred Thousand (7,500,000) shares. Shares reserved
under the Plan may be authorized but unissued Company Stock or authorized and issued Company Stock held in the Company’s treasury.
The Compensation Committee may direct that any stock certificate evidencing shares issued pursuant to the Plan shall bear a legend setting
forth such restrictions on transferability as may apply to such shares pursuant to the Plan.”


 


2.      Except
as specifically set forth herein, the terms of the Plan shall be and remain unchanged, and the Plan as amended shall remain in full force
and effect.


 


The
foregoing is hereby acknowledged as being the Amendment to the Adial Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2017 Equity Incentive Plan, as adopted by
the Board of Directors on August 14, 2021, and approved by the Company’s stockholders on September 27, 2021.


 


	 	 	ADIAL
    PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
	 	 	By:	 	/s/
    William B. Stilley
	 	 	Name:	 	William B.
    Stilley
	 	 	Title:	 	Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM VITECH
AMERICA, INC.'S CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30,1 996 AND THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,757,731
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               28,430,066
<ALLOWANCES>                                   563,434
<INVENTORY>                                 11,394,477
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            41,959,441
<PP&E>                                       4,518,024
<DEPRECIATION>                                 263,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              47,376,586
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,086,036
<BONDS>                                        813,323
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    20,203,903
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,329,280
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                47,376,586
<SALES>                                     73,321,398
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            73,321,398
<CGS>                                       53,470,340
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               61,553,627
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,310,704
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,909,990
<INCOME-TAX>                                   679,402
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          8,230,588
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,230,588
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .94
        

</TABLE>
BEE ID~ 

. - ... • CONFIDENTIALe ,JU# -

.5.~'···'·.'·"·\·.···'!i .. /·J···.,·c· . . I ; - - - ' ~ ' -- :_,. 

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY 

FORr GEORGE G. MEADE, MARYLAND 

Serial: N 4716 

8 0 NOV 1960 

M!MORANilJM FOR 'l'liE EX:IDJTIVB mxm:rARl' I u. s. COMMlJNICA~OBS 

SECURIT! BOABD 

SUBJECT: utilization of Contract Personnel in Goverment CCJISEC 

Operations (u) 

1. It is requested that the inclosed memorandm be ~ircul.ated 

to the ~embers of USCSB for vote sheet action. 

2. This correspondence mB1' be declassified~ removal of 

the 1ncl.oaure. 

Incl: 

Memo tor the Members, 

USCBB, sub.ject as above 

(35 ~·> 

(j~(?.)/~ ROBERT P. BAUDBAN 

Colonel USAF 

Director, Operatioilal Services 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 10-28-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352\3 

CONRDEN11AL 
REF ID:A44694 

i()NFIDENTIJ-\lt 

69NF:EBBU'HAia 

cc: -~-------:'~ ~-

AG 

Reading File 

OPS 

SEC 

CSEC-Oll 

CSEC 

CSEC-05 

CS!XJ-o4 

ENG 

MAT 

DOC-1 

IX>C-03 (2) 

Seria1: N 4 716 

M/n: There is a growing trend within the government toward use of 

capmercial contract persOimel for installation, maintenance, and 

operation of COMSEC equipment, at govermnent establishments, as well 

as for conducting tr&ining for such duties. Such personnel are not 

subject to the same oi>erational and jurisdictional controls that exist 

within the govermnent service. More :f.mJ>ortant is the fact that such 

personnel, solely because of their contract work, will necessarily · have access to much classified government information whi~.is not 

related to the contract. Therefore, it is considered that specific 

conditions mu.st be stated under which contract personnel may be used · to perform COMSEC operations, and that national policy should be 

f'orimil.ated. A proposed policy was forwarded to the services with 

NSA Serial N USO, subject as above, dtd 24 Mar 6o, and has been · infOI'J!l&,lly coordinated with the Office of ASD/MP&R. krmJr aDd Air 

Force concurred in the propose.l. as drafted. Navy and MP&R recommended 

certain relatively minor changes. The inclosed policy statement, 

reflecting these recOUD;llendations I is being forwarded to the USCSB -

for approval as national policy. »u-J.y consideratiQn of this matter 

by USCSB is required because of its close relationship to CCl4SEC 13-/l 

and 13-/2 which are now being considered by the Board. This revision 

has been coordinated with· Mr. Fral.l.ey, CSEC-04, and discussed with 

Mr~ Price, OPS. 

/1,A..~~/L. 

AU.ngalls/ro'l.Oi,/2"4(,r;/23 Nov 6o/cw 

Added M/R: Rewritten{} OPS in coordination with CSEC (Mr. Ingalls). 111 ~ \ "f'.f, • PRICE/45r:As/OPS/28 NCJV' f!IJ/eJ 

€0NFIDENTIAL 

/
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
Consolidated Capital Institutional Properties 1998 Second Quarter 10-Q
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such 10-Q filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000352983
<NAME> CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL INSTITUTIONAL PROPERTIES
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998   
<CASH>                                          10,922
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      689
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                        (37,176)
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,108)   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 116,720   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                          4,422     
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0     
<PREFERRED>                                          0  
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     111,289    
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   116,720    
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,461    
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,530    
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0    
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,931     
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   133.94<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
# ~~0 

# w( CkQM



# ~ 

# U5£As UD 

### a_0 

## -P 1 ()VJ 

## NAMB

**~** I I 

## 2D2-

**s~** 

### 0 **o~t~** 

### d0J 53 1 0S Y (

**'l~tCH\ ~€.42-~**  **~D** J..1N<:nN j {)J_ L 508 8 1

**~** 8 6D7 

## ;1/a 

# ry r1 **vrl"o•':f'---~a,-** L n 

### ~ 

### k--!..'vt .3..?>1- 

### d-1 

### Y 

## -.J.sct :;- SASotJ L&u..c..k **~Cl<:HEQ)** MA-RTIN 1-c '!> -'l t 6-5 8/C **~ o~**  **~t!a., ~~c.ov**  **cWJ--~lPI-4415**



### (fkft Le o f"'j 

# fJtt/ 0 P f\ 

## /1--M'/J '2 "2 - .sbb 

## -I b 

### 1g 

## b. cr..r'\J 

# whlr:wJ> )L 

# i

**~j o**  **p~** --r

# t BZ- (!":) 2lJ).. 

## I s-(d. - 2-21 

### sl )OlA_:) '\ -h . rS<5 H 

## t:rnf (J 

### P 

### I C) Od- 

### '5 (.l! - 65'-1 (



### ft~~~ **;{ J/rb,._**  /5m 1

## J 1f'Z 11.)..->3'1-1

**cJul<.~** 

### FrPelid\e( f{6 513 

### .1'i3 . Z5"31 C(A yo /::J n l:M ro V) 1 n kJ 5o o - 702 - 1-? tCsJ



## ~v/ fl/q!'c4l<r ffG-L·LAe; 

## ';/JJ.-<r?~-s>o&,

**~** f-\ rJ {2P-u 

### e734 **;lc0l- 6Y'-~**  **7- .s**  **~**
**~ C\el~**  **~V\~** cc.YA--
**d-t:>** Sto '-f- 38"1 o
P.1 

OAR Box 1787 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

55) ll-C-13 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 11/4/200810:22:19 AM Sheet 55 of 147 
P.2 

H-C-I3 

_ ^ °

 Sr<>v 

ISBi 

< l PBO ^ 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 

JUN 2 5 I993 

Ms. Margaret A. Welsh 

Executive Director 

Electric Generation Association 

2715 M Street, NW 

Suite 150 

Washington, DC 20007 

Dear Ms. Welsh: 

This is in response to your April 16, 1993 letter to 

Carol M. Browner, Administrator, regarding the Electric 

Generation Association's (EGA's) desire to continue to 

participate in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) 

ongoing effort to reform the new source review (NSR) program. 

The EPA has, to date, conducted three workshops on NSR reform, 

and EGA has had a representative participate at each of these 

workshops. 

At the March 1993 workshop, EPA requested input on the best 

means for ensuring continued public involvement in the NSR reform 

rulemaking process. Options for such involvement included 

subsequent public meetings, formation of work groups on specific 

issues, and a regulatory negotiation. As you indicated, EPA also 

recommended reducing the number of participants to enhance 

communication and the exchange of ideas between the workshop 

participants. Written public comments also supported this 

recommendation. As a result, at our last workshop on pollution 

control projects, EPA announced that it was pursuing the 

formation of a NSR Reform Subcommittee which would be a 

subcommittee of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee. I have 

recommended Mark Carney of EGA as a nominee for this 

subcommittee. 

I appreciate this opportunity to be of service and look 

forward to working with your organization in the NSR reform 

process. 

Sincere] 

rohn S. Seitz

 J 

Directot 

Of f ic47 of Air QualEtt'y Planning 

and Standards 

cc: L. Wegman