alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
fprx-ex1037_375.htm



CONFIDENTIAL

Exhibit 10.37

 

Amendment No. 1 to the Confidential Consulting Agreement

This Amendment No. 1 to the Consulting Agreement (this “Amendment”), effective October 13, 2018 (the “Amendment Effective Date”), is made and entered into by and between Five Prime Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Client”), and FLG Partners, LLC, a California limited liability company (“FLG”).  

Background

A.Client and FLG are parties to the Confidential Consulting Agreement, dated April 13, 2018 (the “Agreement”).  

B.Pursuant to Section 11(G) of the Agreement, any term or provision of the Agreement may be amended only by a writing signed by the parties.

C.Client and FLG desire to amend certain provisions of the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 

Now, therefore, Client and FLG agree as follows:

1.Amendment of the Agreement. Client and FLG agree to amend the terms of the Agreement as provided below, effective as of the Amendment Effective Date.  Capitalized terms used in this Amendment that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meanings as such terms are given in the Agreement.  

2.Term.  Section 6 of Exhibit A to the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as set forth below:

“Term. The later of twelve months from the Effective Date or upon the completion of Services, unless earlier terminated pursuant to Paragraph 4 of the Agreement.”

3.Miscellaneous.

3.1Full Force and Effect.  All terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement that are not amended hereby shall remain in full force and effect.

3.2Entire Agreement.  The Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, sets forth the entire understanding of Client and FLG relating to the subject matter thereof and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings between Client and FLG relating to the subject matter thereof.

3.3Modification.  This Amendment may not be modified or amended in any way unless done so in accordance with Section 11(G) of the Agreement.

3.4Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original and both of which, when taken together, shall constitute one agreement.  The exchange of a fully executed Amendment (in counterparts or otherwise) by electronic transmission, including by email, or facsimile shall be sufficient to bind Client and FLG to the terms and conditions of this Amendment.

1

LGL-7045



CONFIDENTIAL

In Witness Whereof, Client and FLG have executed this Amendment with effect as of the Amendment Effective Date.

 


		
	
Five Prime Therapeutics, Inc.

 

 

By:  /s/ Jeff Coon

 

Name: Jeff Coon

 

Title: SVP, Human Resources
	
FLG Partners, LLC

 

 

By: /s/ Jeffrey Kuhn

 

Name: Jeffrey Kuhn

 

Title: Administrative Partner




 

 

 

2

LGL-7045
Brian YUN SUNG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3452

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 24
                        POWERS OF ATTORNEY        


          KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned
directors of Premark International, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
(the "Corporation"), hereby constitute and appoint John M.
Costigan, L. John Fletcher and Gregory J. Mancuso, and each of
them, true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents of the
undersigned, with full power of substitution and resubstitution,
for and in the name, place and stead of the undersigned, in any
and all capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the
Corporation for its fiscal year ended December 26, 1998, and any
and all amendments thereto, and to file or cause to be filed the
same, together with any and all exhibits thereto and other
documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and
agents and substitutes, and each of them, full power and
authority to do and perform each and every act and thing
requisite or necessary to be done in and about the premises as
fully to all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or
could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said
attorneys-in-fact and agents and substitutes, and each of them,
may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto set
his or her hand and seal this 3rd day of March, 1999.




                                    James M. Ringler




                                    Harry W. Bowman




                                    Gary P. Coughlan



                                    Ruth M. Davis           



                                    Lloyd C. Elam          



                                    W. James Farrell      



                                    Richard S. Friedland



                                    John B. McKinnon     



                                    David R. Parker      


                                    Janice D. Stoney
Jorge ZELAYA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Ivan CANTON, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-5122

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 20-5377 September Term, 2020

1:20-cv-02945-UNA

Filed On: April 19, 2021

Wayland Dee Kirkland,

Appellant

v.

Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the

United States of America, et al.,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Rogers and Wilkins, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit

Judge

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant, which contains a request

for appointment of counsel. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED that the request for appointment of counsel be denied. In civil cases,

appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated

sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. It is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed

November 16, 2020, be affirmed. Appellant has not identified any error in the district

court’s dismissal of the action because he has failed to show that the Attorney General

“has a clear duty to act,” as required to obtain mandamus relief. Walpin v. Corp. for

Nat’l & Cmty. Servs., 630 F.3d 184, 187 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks

omitted); Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. Trump, 924 F.3d 602, 605

(D.C. Cir. 2019); see also Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985) (“[A]n agency’s

decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or criminal process, is a

decision generally committed to an agency’s absolute discretion.”). Nor has appellant

challenged the district court’s determination that he failed to set forth any discernible

legal claims for relief against the remaining appellees.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 20-5377 September Term, 2020

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy 

Deputy Clerk

Page 2
#### Ronald David JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GARBAGE TRUCK OPERATORS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-13419 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Date Filed: 10/25/2016

Ronald David Jones, Pro Se, Quincy, FL.

Before HULL, WILSON and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Ronald David Jones appeals *pro se*the dismissal of his amended complaint about the violation of his civil rights by the “Garbage Truck Operators for the City of Quincy,” Florida. *See*42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed Jones’s complaint for failure to state a claim. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). We affirm.

The district court did not err by dismissing Jones’s complaint. Jones alleged that truck operators dumped garbage in front of his house, scratched his car, loitered nearby at night, and sprayed poison into his house through his window air conditioning unit, and he alleged that the truck operators retaliated against him because of his race, his religion, and his attempt to run for President of the United States. But Jones failed to allege any facts that would support a plausible inference that the truck operators acted with a discriminatory animus. That is, Jones failed to allege any facts to suggest that the truck operators were motivated to discriminate against him based on his race, retaliated against him after he engaged in a religious practice, or intended to deprive him of any other right under federal law. *See*42 U.S.C. § 1983. Jones argues, for the first time, that his neighbors colluded with the truck operators to violate his rights under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, but we will not consider arguments that Jones failed to present to the district court. *See Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co.,*385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004).

We AFFIRM the dismissal of Jones’s amended complaint.
CHARGE QUESTIONS:

AEATF-II Brush and Roller Painting Protocol

1. Is this research is likely to generate scientifically reliable data, useful for assessing the 

exposure of those who apply latex paint containing an antimicrobial pesticide using a brush 

or roller? 

2. Is the research likely to meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 26, subparts K and 

L?
Andres HERNANDEZ, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0775

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 17, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DEXTER B. LOGAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-363

[May 28, 2020]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Kirk C. Volker, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 50-2006-CF-008181-AXXX-MB.

Dexter B. Logan, Crawfordville, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 132 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide an alternate release 

date for certain nonviolent offenders, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2021 

Ms. JACKSON LEE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide an alternate release date for certain nonviolent offenders, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Prison Bureau 

5 Nonviolent Offender Relief Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EARLY RELEASE FOR CERTAIN NONVIOLENT OF7 FENDERS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3624 of title 18, United 

9 States Code, is amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 132 IH

1 (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘at the early 

2 release date provided in subsection (g), if applicable, 

3 or otherwise’’ after ‘‘A prisoner shall be released by 

4 the Bureau of Prisons’’; and 

5 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(h) EARLY RELEASE FOR CERTAIN NONVIOLENT

7 OFFENDERS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of 

8 law, the Bureau of Prisons, pursuant to a good time pol9 icy, shall release from confinement a prisoner who has 

10 served one half or more of his term of imprisonment (in11 cluding any consecutive term or terms of imprisonment) 

12 if that prisoner— 

13 ‘‘(1) has attained the age of 45 years; 

14 ‘‘(2) has never been convicted of a crime of vio15 lence; and 

16 ‘‘(3) has not engaged in any violation, involving 

17 violent conduct, of institutional disciplinary regula18 tions.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### David Michael BOMBER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director, Dept. of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6419

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: August 1, 2017

David Michael Bomber, Appellant Pro Se. Victoria Lee Johnson, OFFICE .OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David Michael Bomber seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or *wrong. Slack v.*McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bomber has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Bomber’s motion for a certifícate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

 

We hereby consent tothe incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-180977, 333-181320 and 333-181738) and FormS-8 (Nos. 333-135971, 333-152276 and 333-177205) of Elephant Talk Communications Corp. of (i) our report dated April 1,2015, relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements (which report expresses an unqualified opinion andincludes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern and ii) our reportdated April 1, 2015 with respect to the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appear in thisAnnual Report on Form 10-K of Elephant Talk Communications Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2014.

 

Our report dated April 1, 2015 onthe effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2014, expressed an opinion that ElephantTalk Communications Corp. had not maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2014,based on criteria established in *Internal Control — Integrated Framework* issued by the Committee of SponsoringOrganizations of the Treadway Commission (2013).

 

 

 

/s/ Squar, Milner, Peterson, Miranda &Williamson, LLP

 

Los Angeles, California

 April 1, 2015

 

 

Consent of Independent Registered PublicAccounting Firm

 

 

 

Board of Directors

Elephant Talk Communications Corp.

 

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-180977, 333-181320 and 333-181738) and FormS-8 (Nos. 333-135971, 333-152276 and 333-177205) of Elephant Talk Communications Corp. of our report dated March 31, 2014,except for Note 35 which is dated April  1, 2015, relating to the consolidated financial statements appearing in thisAnnual Report on Form 10-K. Our report contains an explanatory paragraph regarding the company’s ability to continue asa going concern.

 

 

/s/ BDO USA, LLP

 

Los Angeles, California

 

March 31, 2014, except for Note 35 which is dated April1, 2015
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

GARY PALMER
, Appellant,

v.

RICARDO REYES, TOBIN & REYES, P.A., JORGE MORRELL, WOOLBRIGHT DEVELOPMENT, INC., PRINCIPAL ESTATE INVESTORS, LLC a/k/a

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL GROUP a/k/a

PRINCIPAL SOUTHPORT RETAIL MEMBER, LLC and

SOUTHPORT LLC
, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 21

- 794

[ February 24, 2022 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; John B. Bowman , Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE19

- 25655

.

Michael A. Rosenberg, Gregory Willis, Peter Weinstein and Adrianna

de la Cruz

- Mu ñ oz of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Plantation, for appellant.

Ricardo Reyes and Sacha A. Boegem of Tobin & Reyes, Boca Raton, for appellees Ricardo Reyes, Tobin & Reyes, P.A., Jorge Morell

, and Woolbright Development, Inc.

Nelson C. Bellido and Jeffrey R. Geldens of Roig Lawyers, Miami, for appellees Principal Real Estate Investors LLC

, Southport Reta il LLC

, and Southport Retail Member LLC.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C IKLIN
, G ERBER and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *2 Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-18-0000437 18-JAN-2022 07:57 AM Dkt. 113 MO
Nohora PEADA, et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4789

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 02, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

Doubleshot, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 61691

)

Under Contract No. N6835

- 06

- C

- 0416 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. Alan Shulman

Chief Executive Officer

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Samuel W. Morris, Esq.

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney

Srikanti Schaffner, Esq.

Trial Attorney

Defense Contract Management Agency

Carson, CA

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute which is the subject of the appeal having been settled, the appeal is

hereby dismissed with prejudice subject to reinstatement only in the event the

settlement is not consummated. Any request to reinstate the subject appeal must be

filed within 90 days of the date of this Order.

Dated: November 1 5 , 2023

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61691

, Appeal of Doubleshot, Inc.

, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: November 15, 2023 MICHAEL N. O’CONNELL

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1132 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1132

  To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to protect the 
 rights of citizens under the Second Amendment to the Constitution of 
                           the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 18, 2021

    Mrs. Greene of Georgia (for herself, Mr. Massie, and Mr. Perry) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to protect the 
 rights of citizens under the Second Amendment to the Constitution of 
                           the United States.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Gun Owner Privacy Act''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

    Section 922(t) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
            ``(7)(A) None of the funds appropriated pursuant to any 
        provision of law may be used for--
                    ``(i) any system to implement this subsection that 
                does not require and result in the immediate 
                destruction of all information, in any form whatsoever, 
                submitted by or on behalf of any person who has been 
                determined not to be prohibited from owning a firearm; 
                or
                    ``(ii) the implementation or collection of any tax 
                or fee by any officer, agent, or employee of the United 
                States, or by any State or local officer or agent 
                acting on behalf of the United States, in connection 
                with the implementation of this subsection.
            ``(B) Any person aggrieved by a violation of this paragraph 
        may bring an action in the district court of the United States 
        for the district in which the person resides.
            ``(C) Any person who is successful with respect to an 
        action brought under subparagraph (B) shall receive damages, 
        punitive damages, and such other remedies as the court may 
        determine to be appropriate, including a reasonable attorney's 
        fee.''.
                                 <all>
```
C.C., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, M.S.M., and M.K.M., Appellees.

No. 1D17-4141

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 29, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.