alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10x1.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 


 


ASPENBIO PHARMA, INC.


AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED 2002 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN,


 AS AMENDED


 


EFFECTIVE MAY 22, 2012


 


This Amendment No. 5, dated and effective May 22, 2012 (the “Amendment”) is an amendment to the 2002 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended and restated on June 1, 2007, as amended (the “Plan”), of AspenBio Pharma, Inc., a Colorado corporation (the “Company”).  All capitalized terms used in this Amendment without definition have the meanings set forth in the Plan.


 


WHEREAS, Section 20(a) authorizes the Board of Directors of the Company to make amendments to the Plan, subject to shareholder approval as required by law or agreement.


 


WHEREAS, on March 21, 2012, the Board approved amendments to the Plan to increase the number of shares available for awards under the Plan from 1,500,000 to 1,775,000, and submitted such amendment to the Company’s shareholders for approval at the annual meeting of shareholders held on May 22, 2012.


 


WHEREAS, on May 22, 2012, the shareholders approved the foregoing amendment to the Plan.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, intending to be legally bound, and in accordance with the approvals set forth in the WHEREAS clauses, which are incorporated by reference into this Amendment, the Company amends the Plan as follows:


 


1.           Section 4 of the Plan is deleted in its entirety and is replaced by the following:


 


“4.           The Common Stock.  The Board is authorized to appropriate, issue and sell for the purposes of the Plan, and the Option Committee is authorized to grant Options and Rights to Purchase with respect to, a total number, not in excess of 1,775,000 shares of Common Stock, either treasury or authorized but unissued or the number and kind of shares of stock or other securities which in accordance with Section 16 of this Plan shall be substituted for the 1,775,000 shares or into which such 1,775,000 shares shall be adjusted.  All or any unsold shares subject to an Option or Right to Purchase that for any reason expires or otherwise terminates may again be made subject to Options or Rights to Purchase under the Plan.  No person may be granted Options or Rights to Purchase under this Plan covering in excess of an aggregate of 85,000 Option Shares and shares of Restricted Stock in any calendar year, subject to adjustments in connection with Section 16 of this Plan.”


 


2.           Except as amended by this Amendment, the Plan continues in full force and effect.


 


3.           In the event of a conflict between this Amendment and the Plan, this Amendment shall govern.
Exhibit
99








AGREEMENT
TO FURNISH DEBT INSTRUMENTS




Pursuant
to Instruction 3(b)(4)(iii) to Item 601 of Regulation S-K, the Company has not
included as an Exhibit any instrument with respect to long-term debt if the
total amount of debt authorized by such instrument does not exceed 10% of the
consolidated assets of the Company and its subsidiaries.  The Company
agrees, pursuant to this Instruction, to furnish a copy of any such instrument
to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request of the
Commission.








Pennsylvania
      Commerce Bancorp, Inc./s/ Mark A.
      ZodyMark
      A. Zody,Chief
      Financial Officer





Dated: 
      March 16, 2009
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.0


            REVIEW REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



To Republic Bancshares, Inc.:

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Republic
Bancshares, Inc. (a Florida corporation) and subsidiaries as of September 30,
1998, and the related consolidated statements of operations and cash flows for
the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 1998, and the
consolidated statement of stockholders' equity for the nine-month period ended
September 30, 1998. These financial statements are the responsibility of the
Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is the
expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.
Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the financial statements referred to above for them to be in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet of Republic Bancshares, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended (not
presented herein), and, in our report dated March 13, 1998, we expressed an
unqualified opinion on those statements. In our opinion, the information set
forth in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 1997, is
fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the consolidated balance
sheet from which it has been derived.



ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
--------------------------------------

Tampa, Florida,
     October 26, 1998
```

[Federal Register: June 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 119)]
[Notices]               
[Page 35513]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22jn10-82]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

 
Application of Schuman Aviation Company Ltd. D/B/A Makani Kai 
Helicopters D/B/A Ko Olina Helicopters D/B/A Pacific Air Express D/B/A 
Makani Kai Air Charters; For Commuter Authority

AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2010-6-17), Docket DOT-
OST-2010-0006.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested 
persons to show cause why it should not issue an order finding Schuman 
Aviation Company Ltd. d/b/a Makani Kai Helicopters d/b/a Ko Olina 
Helicopters d/b/a Pacific Air Express d/b/a Makani Kai Air Charters 
fit, willing, and able, and awarding it Commuter Air Carrier 
Authorization.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than 
June 30, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in 
Docket DOT-OST-2010-0006 and addressed to U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Docket Operations, (M-30, Room W12-140), 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590, 
and should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the 
order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Damon D. Walker, Air Carrier Fitness 
Division (X-56, Room W86-465), U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-7785.

    Dated: June 16, 2010.
Susan L. Kurland,
Assistant Secretary, for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2010-15028 Filed 6-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
EXHIBIT
32







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 annual report of Trist Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I Eric Stoppenhagen
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:







(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.







Date:  February
4,
2010                                                                           /s/ ERIC
STOPPENHAGEN


Eric Stoppenhagen


Interim President and Corporate
Secretary and


Chief Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: Noel v. Oakbend Medical Center

Appellate case number: 01-21-00206-CV

Trial court case number: 19-DCV-265821

Trial court: 458th District Court of Fort Bend County

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing filed by appellant, Brian Duane Noel, is denied. 

Judge’s signature: /s/ Gordon Goodman

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman and Hightower.

Date: August 23, 2022
##### 



EXHIBIT
10.10
  
    
    
    A bi-weekly salary of $8,653.84 which equals $225,000.00 on an annualized basis.
    
    The variable portion of your total compensation package is set at $100,000
annually, pro-rated for 2007. Shortly after you join us at ATG, you will be given a
set of goals, which will serve as the criteria for this incentive program.
    
    In concert with this employment offer, you will be granted 125,000 options to
acquire ATG common stock at the fair market value at close of market, on your start
date. These options vest quarterly over 4 years, with cliff vesting for the
1st year. Cliff Vesting means that after 1 year from your start date,
your options will vest 25%. Thereafter, your options will vest quarterly for the
remaining 3 years.
    
    You will also be granted 75,000 ATG RSUs. These RSUs will be time-based and will
vest 25% annually for each year of the 4 year vesting period, initiating on your
start date with ATG.
      Sincerely,
    
    Agreed and Accepted:/s/ Patricia ONeill
    
    /s/ Andrew McCleary ReynoldsPatricia ONeill
Senior Vice President, Human Resources
Art Technology Group Inc.
    
    Andrew McCleary ReynoldsJuly 23, 2007Potential Start Date
#### Brian ALEXIS, AKA Blagoy Petrov Alexiev, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, The United States, official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-55688

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 27, 2017 *

Filed October 3, 2017

Brian Alexis, Pro Se

David A. DeJute, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jessica O. Cheh, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLA—-Office of .the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Federal Bureau of Investigation

Raymond Joseph Fuentes, Attorney, Fuentes & McNally, LLP, Glendale, CA, for Defendant-Appellee County of Los An-geles

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Brian Alexis, AKA Blagoy Petrov Ale-xiev, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising from defendants’ alleged failure to investi*508gate and prosecute an attempted murder. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of the statute of limitations. *Ventura Mobilehome Cmtys. Owners Ass’n v. City of San Buenaventura,*371 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Alexis’ action as time-barred because the statute of limitations defense for his claims appears on the face of his complaint. *See Joblan v. Dean Witter & Co.,*614 F.2d 677, 682 (9th Cir. 1980) (district court may dismiss a claim “[i]f the running of the statute is apparent on the face of the complaint” and the assertions of the complaint do not permit a showing that the statute was tolled); *see also Sharkey v. O’Neal,*778 F.3d 767, 773 (9th Cir. 2015) • (California’s three-year statute of limitations for actions based upon liabilities created by statute applies to claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act); *Canatella v. Van De Kamp,*486 F.3d 1128, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 2007) (stating that California’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to § 1983 claim, and claim “accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); *Van Strum v. Lawn,*940 F.2d 406, 410 (9th Cir. 1991) (forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to *Bivens*claim).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Charles McLaren, Resp’t, *v.*Thomas Stokes and James Stokes, App’lts.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,*

*Filed May 11, 1891.)*

Guaranty of sales—Collectibility of claims—Evidence.

Plaintiff employed defendant under an agreement that he was to have one-half the profits on the goods he sold, but should be liable for one-half the losses made on the sales of such goods. In an action against him for his share of losses, *Held,*that it was not necessary to sue a worthless account to have it considered a loss: uncollectibility may be proved otherwise than by return of an execution unsatisfied.

Appeal by both defendants from judgment granted at special term, Kings county, against James Stokes for $37.12, and for $129.36 costs against Thomas Stokes.

*J. George Flammer,*for app’lts; *L. B. Bunnell,*for resp’t.

Barnard, P. J.

The plaintiff and Thomas Stokes were partners in business. James Stokes was a clerk of the firm under an agreement by which he was paid for his services according to the amount of goods which he sold for the firm. This agreement was that the clerk should have one-half of the profits of the goods so sold by him, but he should be liable for one-half of the losses made on the'sales of such goods. There was no conflict as to the amount of these losses. The exact amount was proven to have been $2,027.32. There was no conflict as to the uncollectibility of the several accounts which made up this sum. The firm treated them as worthless and the defendant Thomas Stokes swore that the accounts “ were not worth going after.” There was no conflict upon the question of the sale of the goods which made up the accounts, having been made by James Stokes. The plaintiff had sold out to one John Kiddie, but these accounts had been *994crossed off as worthless and did not pass by the transfer which was given to secure a debt and as collateral thereto.

It was not necessary for the partners to sue a worthless account. Proof of uncollectibility may be proved other than by return of' an execution unsatisfied. The plaintiff was entitled to one-quarter of this *loss.*The case contained nothing for a jury to pass upon if the case was one triable by a jury. A verdict for the plaintiff' would have ordered as matter of law. The question, therefore whether.the correct mode of trial was by jury or by court, without a jury, was one of no importance. The costs were property awarded against Thomas Stokes. He joined in an answer and made denials which he could not support on the trial. His evidence is in entire harmony with the complaint which he by his-answer with the other defendant denies, and denies under oath.

The judgment should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.

Dykman, J., concurs._
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the following Registration Statements:



| | (1) | Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-83975) pertaining to the 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and 1998 Stock Plan of drugstore.com, inc.;
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-58174) pertaining to 1998 Stock Plan of drugstore.com, inc.;
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (3) | Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-85468) pertaining to the 1998 Stock Plan of drugstore.com, inc.;
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (4) | Registration Statement (Form S-3, No. 333-118667) and related prospectus of drugstore.com, inc.; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (5) | Registration Statement (Form S-3, No. 333-130097) and related prospectus of drugstore.com, inc.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of our reports dated March 16, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of drugstore.com, inc., drugstore.com, inc. managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of drugstore.com, inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 1, 2006.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Seattle, Washington

March 16, 2006
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-1924

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * * Michael Wayne Erp, * * Appellant. *

___________ Appeals from the United States No. 96-2022 District Court for the

___________ Western District of Arkansas. United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee, * * v. * * Robert Stone, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: March 6, 1997 Filed: March 10, 1997

___________ Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.-2-

Michael Erp and Robert Stone e ntered conditional guilty pleas to aiding and abetting each other in the manufacture o f methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18The HONORABLE JIMM LARRY HENDREN, United States Distric t Judge

for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report an d recommendations of the HONORABLE BEVERLY R. STITES, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. -3- U.S.C. § 2. They now challenge the district court's denial o f 1 their motion to suppress evidence seized from Stone's barn at the time of their arrest. We affirm.

A pers on claiming to have suffered an unlawful invasion i n violation of the Fourth Amendment must establish a legitimat e expectation of privacy in the object searched or seized. Se e United States v. Stallings , 28 F.3d 58, 60 (8th Cir. 1994). W e mu st consider whether the person has asserted a subjectiv e expectation of privacy, and wh ether that subjective expectation is objectively reasonable. See id.

We conclude Erp lacked standing to challenge the search an d seizure, as he presented no evidence below showing that he l ived on th e Stone property or was a guest in the home at the time of th e search. Cf. Minnesota v. Olson , 495 U.S. 91, 95-100 (1990 ) (holding overnight guest had legitimate expectation of privacy in host's home).

As to Stone, we conclude the district court did not clearl y err in finding that the barn was outside the curtilage of Stone's home. See United States v. Swepston , 987 F.2d 1510, 1513 (10t h Cir. 1993) (what comprises curtilage is question of fact); s ee also United States v. Dunn , 480 U.S. 294, 301 (1987) (definin g cu rtilage). The barn was 500 feet from Stone's house, was no t included within the fenced yard around his home, was not bei ng used for "intimate activities of the home," and was not separatel y fenced to prevent observation. Cf. Dunn , 480 U.S. at 302-03 (barn lay outside curtilage of ranch house where barn was 60 yards from-4-

house, did not lie within area surrounding house that was enclosed by fence, and was not being used for intimate activities of home,-5-

and various interior fences we re designed to corral livestock, not to prevent persons from observing what lay inside enclosed area). We further agree with the district court that--given the ease o f visibility and access into the barn--Stone possessed no legitimate expe ctation of privacy in this structure outside the curtilage
. See Wabun-Inini v. Sessions , 900 F.2d 1234, 1242 (8th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Ronald MCCLARY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mitchell LAWSON, Nurse Supervisor; Joseph Lightsey; Nurse Henderson; Nurse Sierra, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6313

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 28, 2017

Decided: June 30, 2017

Ronald McClary, Appellant Pro Se. Vanessa N. Totten, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Nathan Douglas Childs, Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, YOUNG MOORE *&*HENDERSON, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina; Charles Houston Foppiano, Gary Adam Moyers, BATTEN LEE, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronald McClary appeals the district court’s order and judgment granting summary judgment to the Defendants and dismissing McClary’s civil rights complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *McClary v. Lawson,*No. 5:14-ct-03147-FL (E.D.N.C. Mar. 2, 2017). 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*
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
Case No. 6D2 02 3

- 1077 Lower Tribunal No. CF06

- 009369

- XX

_____________________________
M ILTON J EROME B ATTLES , Appellant
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee

.

_____________________________ Appeal Pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County

. Melissa Gravitt , Judge.

July 9, 2024

PER CURIAM

.

AFFIRMED

.

STARGEL
, BROWNLEE and GANNAM , JJ., c oncur.

Milton Jerome Battles, Graceville, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cerese Crawford Taylor , Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TI MELY FILED
ex10-02.htm




Exhibit 10.02

















 




  





1











  









 




  





2











  









 




  





3











  









 


 




  





4











  






 





 



5
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Armando TLASECA, also known as Francisco Lopez, also known as Armando Lopez, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40155 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 22, 2017

Heather Harris Rattan, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Armando Tlaseca, Pro Se

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Armando Tlaseca has moved for leave to *419withdraw 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 (5th Cir. 2011). Tlaseca has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We agree 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*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R, 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *419published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.