alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.19

Contact:          Jerry B. Hook, Ph.D.
                  President & CEO
                  Sparta Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
                  (215) 442-1700, ext. 205

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

  Sparta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Announces The Appointment of Dr. Martin Rose to
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Vice President, Clinical and Regulatory Affairs
                 -----------------------------------------------

         Horsham, PA, September 18, 1997 -- Sparta Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(Nasdaq: SPTA, SPTAU, SPTAW, SPTAZ and SPTAL) announced today that Dr. Martin
Rose has joined the Company as Vice President, Clinical and Regulatory Affairs.

Dr. Jerry B. Hook, Sparta's President and Chief Executive Officer, commented,
"Sparta's team is greatly enhanced with the addition of Dr. Rose as Vice
President of Clinical and Regulatory Affairs. The multi-faceted background which
he brings to the Company will be invaluable as our clinical trials progress."

Dr. Rose has broad and in-depth experience in the pharmaceutical industry, most
recently as Vice President, Drug Development of Quintiles Worldwide Strategic
Consulting. Previously, he was with Alpha 1 Biomedicals, Inc. where he was
Senior Vice President, Clinical and Regulatory Affairs. Dr. Rose was also Senior
Director, Government Affairs for Genentech, Inc. Prior to these positions, he
was Group Leader for the Division of Cardio-Renal Drug Products in the Food and
Drug Administration. Along with his professional experience, Dr. Rose has been
associated with many trade and professional societies including: the American
Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (for which he Chaired the
Section on Clinical Pharmaceutical Development and Regulatory Affairs), the PMA
User Fee Task Force, the Institute of Medicine Study on the Use of Advisory
Committees by the FDA, the BIO Drug Regulatory Committee (he held the position
of Chairman for three years) and several FDLI Annual Meeting Planning
Committees.

Dr. Rose obtained his undergraduate degree as well as his MD from the University
of California School of Medicine, San Francisco. He earned the degree of Juris
Doctor from the University of California School of Law at Berkeley.

Sparta is a development stage pharmaceutical company engaged in the business of
acquiring rights to, and developing for commercialization, technologies and
drugs for the treatment of a number of life threatening diseases including
cancer, cardiovascular disorders and inflammation. The Company has focused on
acquiring compounds that have been previously tested in humans and animals and
technologies that may improve the delivery or targeting of previously tested,
and in some cases marketed, anticancer agents. Sparta's foundation in cancer
chemotherapy has been augmented by the addition of new technology in the rapidly
expanding field of serine protease inhibitors. Serine protease inhibitors have
wide applications in diverse fields such as inflammation, reperfusion injury and
stroke.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.9


Summary Description of the 2018 Directors Compensation Program


Members of the Company’s Board of Directors who are not Company employees receive an annual retainer of $100,000, which is intended to cover all regularly scheduled meetings of the Board and its committees.


The Chairs of Board committees receive additional annual retainers. For the Chair of the Audit Committee, the retainer is $20,000; for the Chair of the Board Affairs and Nominating Committee, the retainer is $10,000; and for the Chair of the Compensation Committee, the retainer is $15,000. The retainer for the Lead Director is $25,000.


All independent directors also receive an annual deferred stock unit grant. The number of shares covered by each grant is equal to $145,000 (based on the 200-day average stock price as of January 31, in the year of the grant, a methodology consistent with the calculation for other executive equity awards), rounded up to the next ten-share increment. The deferred stock units are settled upon termination of service as a director. Directors may also defer their annual retainers, committee chair retainers, and meeting fees in a deferred stock unit account.


A director who is an employee of Grainger or any Grainger subsidiary does not receive any retainer fees for Board or Board committee service, Board or Board committee meeting attendance fees, or stock options or stock units under the Director Stock Plan.


Stock ownership guidelines applicable to non-employees directors were established in 1998. These guidelines provide that within five years after election, a director must own Grainger common stock and common stock equivalents having a value of at least five times the annual retainer fee for serving on the Board.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Carlos CASTILLO-GARZA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40313 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant. U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Juan Carlos Castillo-Garza, Pro Se

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Carlos Castillo-Garza has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 2011). Castillo-Garza has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*6th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R, 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5,4.
Christine Lynn HIPPLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3989

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### CITY OF JUNEAU v. WARNER et al.

No. 2826-A.

First Division. Juneau.

May 3, 1930.

R. E. Robertson, of Juneau, for plaintiff.

Hellenthal & Hellenthal, of Juneau, for defendants.

HILL, District Judge.

The defendants in the above-entitled action have answered the plaintiff’s amended complaint. Plaintiff now attacks that answer by motion to make portions thereof more definite and certain, to strike therefrom various other portions, and, at the same time, demurs to each affirmative defense on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense. In view of my ruling .upon the demurrer, it will not be necessary to consider these *250parts of the plaintiff’s motions addressed to the first two affirmative defenses. Considering the provisions of sections 907, 908, and 929 Of the Compiled Laws of Alaska, I deny the plaintiff’s motions addressed to the third affirmative defense.

Defendants’ “Further and separate answer to plaintiff’s complaint,” commencing on page 2 of their answer, and their “Further affirmative answer to the complaint of plaintiff,” commencing on page 7, seem very intimately related; the allegations of the former being referred to in the latter as if they were all one pleading. If the “Further and separate answer to plaintiff’s complaint” is intended as an allegation of occupancy prior in point of time to the occupancy claimed by the plaintiff, it is so filled with evidentiary matter having little relation to occupancy, for instance, the allegation “the said Charles G. Warner agreed to pay the sum of $5,500.00 for said property, $1,000.00 of which was paid in cash, and the balance was to be paid in monthly payments of $100.00 each,” that the allegations of ultimate facts are so surrounded and obscured that I am unable to determine the exact nature of the pleading. The nature of the “Further affirmative answer to the complaint of plaintiff” is disclosed in the last sentence, which shows that those allegations are intended to set up an estoppel. I am inclined to believe that the purpose of all of the matter set up in the two separate answers above referred to is to show an estoppel, but neither one sufficiently pleads facts which, if true, would estop the plaintiff. Mere silence of itself, when there is no duty to speak, will not raise an estoppel in pais, and there is nothing in all of the facts alleged which indicates in any way that the defendants were induced by the plaintiff to do any of the acts they have alleged they did, and nothing to show that the plaintiff was under any duty to make inquiry as to what the defendants were doing.

I sustain the demurrer to the first and second affirmative defenses, with leave to the defendants to file an amended *251answer within twenty days from the date hereof, if they be so advised.

I overrule the demurrer to the defendants’ “Further answer in the way of cross-complaint.”
Exhibit






[NAME]
MARCH 15, 2018
PERFORMANCE UNITS  
AWARD LETTER
Protective Life Corporation has awarded you:
_______ Performance Units 
Award Period: January 1, 2018 – December 31, 2020 
Date of Grant: March 15, 2018
These Performance Units were awarded pursuant to the Protective Life Corporation Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), and are subject to the terms and conditions contained in the 2018 Performance Units Award Provisions (“Provisions”), as set forth in Appendix A to this Award Letter, and the Plan. The Plan and the Provisions contain terms and conditions regarding the payment of these Performance Units, termination of employment, tax withholding, non-solicitation of Company employees and customers, regulatory compliance and other matters, and I encourage you to read the Provisions carefully.
Please retain these documents in your personal records.
                        
Richard J. Bielen
President and Chief Executive Officer of Protective Life Corporation
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129618 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 129618 

 COA: 261013 

St. Clair CC: 95-001361-FC 

LAWRENCE EUGENE DELL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 4, 2005 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion 

for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). 

s1219 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 27, 2005 

Clerk
#### Kenneth WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EXPERIAN CONSUMER FRAUD ASSISTANCE; Trans Union Consumer; Equifax Customer Accounts; Huntington Mtg Company, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-7158

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 15, 2016

Decided: December 21, 2016

Kenneth White, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph N. Parsons, Jones Day, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; William R. Brown, Robert J. Schuckit, Schuckit *&*Associates PC, Zions-ville, Indiana; Vincent M. Roskovensky, Clark Hill PLC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; John Joseph Meadows, Steptoe & Johnson, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Ap-pellees.

Before MOTZ, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth White appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his complaint for *879failure to state a claim and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. White v. Experian Consumer Fraud, No. 1:16-cv-00049-JPB-MJA (N.D. W. Va. Aug. 15, 2016). We also deny White’s motion for default judgment. 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.

AFFIRMED
Raytoria MCBRYDE v. VALERIO AUTO SALES

2160442

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

April 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### State Camp of the Patriotic Order Sons of America, Appellant, *v.*Washington Camp No. 669.

Argued April 24, 1956.

Before Steen, C. J., Jones, Bell, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.

*502
      *Robert A. Detweiler,*with him *Arthur M. Eastburn, Jr., for*appellant.

*J. Lawrence Grim,*for appellee.

June 25, 1956:

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Horace Stern,

The controversy here is the same as in *Pennsylvania State Camp, Patriotic Order Sons of America v. Washington Camp No. 135,*385 Pa. 492, and *Pennsylvania State Camp, Patriotic Order Sons of America v. Washington Camp No. 250,*385 Pa. 503, in which cases opinions have this day been filed.

In 1892 the State Camp granted a charter to Camp No. 669, an unincorporated association located at Keelersville, Bucks County, and from that time until 1948 the State Camp operated as a superior Camp requiring fealty from Camp No. 669 which, in turn, operated as a subordinate Camp under its charter. In 1948 the members of Camp No. 669 conveyed two tracts of land with the building thereon, for a consideration of $1.00, to the trustees of an unincorporated association called the Keelersville Club. The State Camp notified Camp No. 669 that such action was improper and demanded that the property be reconveyed to the Camp. This request being refused, the State Camp revoked the charter of Camp No. 669 because of the conveyance of the property, because of the failure of the Camp to make returns to the State Camp, and because the Camp had secured a liquor license without permission of the State Camp and had operated a club in which liquor was dispensed in the Camp building to members and other persons. The State Camp, having demanded a surrender of the property in accordance with the rules of the Order, brought a bill in equity against Camp No. 669, its members, and the trustees of the Keelersville Club, *503praying that they be ordered to convey to the State Camp the real estate in question, and also the charter, rituals, and other property. Defendants filed preliminary objections to the bill, which were sustained by the court on the ground that the State Camp did not have the right to create subordinate Camps; the court therefore dismissed the bill* and the State Camp appeals from its decree.

We held in *Pennsylvania State Camp, Patriotic Order Sons of America v. Washington Camp No. 135,*that the State Camp did have the power and authority to charter subordinate Camps and to take over their property and effects upon their withdrawal or expulsion from the Order.

The decree is reversed and the record remanded with a procedendo, costs to abide the event.

Defendants stated their willingness to deliver the charter, rituals and books, etc. to the State Camp, and accordingly the court, in its decree, ordered that such delivery be made.
EXHIBIT 11

                              THE FINOVA GROUP INC.
                        Computation of Earnings Per Share
                  (Dollars in Thousands, except per share data)



                              Three Months Ended          Nine Months Ended
                                 September 30,               September 30,
                           -------------------------   -------------------------
                              1997          1996          1997          1996
                           -----------   -----------   -----------   -----------
Income from Continuing
 Operations                $    34,921   $    30,489   $   100,330   $    86,097
                           ===========   ===========   ===========   ===========

Net Income                 $    34,921   $    29,763   $   100,330   $    85,005

                           ===========   ===========   ===========   ===========

Average common shares
 outstanding before
 common equivalents         54,350,000    54,864,000    54,302,000    54,744,000

Common equivalent stock
options                      1,714,000     1,198,000     1,606,000     1,198,000
                           -----------   -----------   -----------   -----------

Average outstanding common
and equivalent shares       56,064,000    56,062,000    55,908,000    55,942,000
                           ===========   ===========   ===========   ===========

Earnings from continuing
 operations per common
 and equivalent share      $      0.62   $      0.54   $      1.79   $      1.54
                           ===========   ===========   ===========   ===========

Earnings per common and
 equivalent share          $      0.62   $      0.53   $      1.79   $      1.52
                           ===========   ===========   ===========   ===========
                                       11
Edward Dwight COLEMAN v. STATE

CR-16-0447

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017 Reh. denied May 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Wilfrid SIMEON, Jr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4748

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 24, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

The petition for belated appeal of the summary denial of petitioner's postconviction motion in the trial court is granted in circuit court case numbers 13-CF-16665, 13-CF-16667, and 13-CF-17010 for review of the trial court's order of October 19, 2017.

The circuit court clerk shall treat this order as a notice of appeal, promptly certify same and return it to this court as with any notice of appeal, and a new appellate case number will be assigned to this appeal and an acknowledgment letter will issue at that time. The summary record shall be transmitted to this court when the certified copy of this order is returned by the trial court clerk.

After a new appellate case number is assigned and an acknowledgment letter has issued, this court will issue an order advising the appellant of the due date of the optional initial brief.

NORTHCUTT, KELLY, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
#### Chancellor v. The State

Oriminal Proceedings : *Presenting indictment.*

Where the record doeB not show that the indictment was brought into court, this court will reverse a judgment of conviction. The indorsement by the clerk upon the indictment, “filed in open court,” is not sufficient

APPEAL from *Benton*Circuit Court.

Hon. J. M. Pittman, Circuit Judge.

*Gregg,*for appellant.

Henderson, Attorney-Gfeneral, *contra.*

Eakin, J. :

There was, in this case, a trial and conviction, for manslaughter. There is nothing in the record to show that the indictment was brought into court by the grand jury. The indorsement of the clerk, “filed in open court,” is not sufficient. *McKensie*v. *State,*24 Ark., 636.

Inasmuch as the supposed crime may be yet the subject of a proper judicial investigation, we forbear any comment upon the testimony, further than to say, in explanation of the course now pursued in declining to send down a *certiorari*of our own motion, that we think the jury must certainly have acted under ■a misapprehension of the law as given by instructions, or were influenced by their knowledge of facts not appearing in the record. We cannot find any proof, sufficient to sustain a verdict that the killing was by design, or done in the commission *816of an unlawful act, or under any such circumstances as to. make the defendant amenable to a judgment so terrible in its. disgrace.

Let the judgment be reversed, and the cause remanded, with the usual instructions in such cases adopted by this court as. to its practice. See *McKensie*v. *State, supra; Green*v. *State,*19 Ark., 178; *Holcomb*v. *State,*31 Ark., 427.
<PAGE>


Exhibit 10.30A

                          SPARTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
                       AMENDED 1991 STOCK PLAN, AS AMENDED

                                 Amendment No. 1

                  Pursuant to the power reserved in Section 25 of the Sparta
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 1991 Stock Plan, as amended (the "Plan"), the Plan is
hereby amended as follows:

                  1.  The first sentence of Section 3 is hereby amended and
restated to read as follows:

                  "The number of Shares subject to this Plan as to which Stock
                  Rights may be granted and exercisable from time to time shall
                  be 3,000,000 or the equivalent of such number of Shares after
                  the Administrator, in its sole discretion, has interpreted the
                  effect of any stock split, stock dividend, combination,
                  recapitalization or similar transaction."

                  2.  This Amendment No. 1 to the Plan shall be effective
only after approval of the Company's stockholders as set forth in
Section 25.

                  To record the adoption of this Amendment No. 1, the Company
has caused its authorized officers to affix its corporation name and seal as of
this 17th day of June, 1997.


CORPORATE SEAL                                 PARTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.



Attest:  /s/ Ronald H. Spair                       By:  /s/ Jerry B. Hook
       ------------------------                       --------------------
            Ronald H. Spair                        Jerry B. Hook, Ph.D.
            Secretary                              President and Chief Executive
                                                            Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 17, 2014

No. 04-14-00786-CV

ESTATE OF MARY LUELLA CLAYTON HARDIE, DECEASED,

From the Probate Court No 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-PC-2790

Honorable Tom Rickhoff, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant's unopposed second motion to extend time to respond to appellee's motion to 

dismiss is hereby GRANTED. Time is extended to December 31, 2014.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 17th day of December, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Neide A. NERCESIAN and Jack Nercesian, Jr., Appellants, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC; Plantation Homeowners, Inc.; and Unknown Tenants/Owners n/k/a Yudith Bacallao, Appellees.

Case No. 2D16-2801

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.