alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT HAS BEEN REQUESTED FOR THE REDACTED PORTIONS OF THIS EXHIBIT. THE REDACTIONS ARE INDICATED WITH “[**]”. A COMPLETE VERSION
OF THIS EXHIBIT HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION. 
 SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 

This Supplemental Agreement (“Agreement”) is executed on November 16, 2017 by and between Praj Industries Ltd. (CIN
L27101PN1985PLC038031) a company incorporated under the laws of India, (“Praj”), with its registered office located at “Praj Tower” 274 & 275/2, Bhumkar Chowk-Hinjewadi Road, Hinjewadi, Pune 411057, India and Gevo,
Incorporated (a company incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in the United States, with offices located at 345 Inverness Drive South, Building C, Suite 310, Englewood, CO 80112, USA) , (“Gevo”). 

WHEREAS: 
  

	 	A.	The Parties have executed a Joint Development Agreement dated November 6, 2015 (“JDA”) under which Gevo and Praj identified their respective roles in: (i) developing process design packages
(“PDPs”) for the production of renewable isobutanol from certain feedstocks , namely, sugarcane juice, sugarcane syrup, sugarcane molasses, sugar beet juice, sugar beet syrup, sugar beet molasses, cassava, rice, wheat sorghum and
cellulosic sugars (“Feedstock”), and (ii) providing services to isobutanol plant operators utilizing the PDPs and other intellectual property rights (“IP”) licensed by Gevo to such plant operators ;


  

	 	B.	Whilst, the JDA was valid till November 6, 2017, the Parties are desirous of continuing with the relationship for a further period as agreed herein and have agreed to restate the terms of the JDA; 


THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 
  

	 	1	The JDA terms are restated pursuant to this Agreement and the Parties agree to continue abiding by the said terms of the JDA with effect from November 7, 2017 till March 31, 2018. 


 

	 	2	The Parties have agreed that Praj is to [**]. 

  

	 	3	The Parties have agreed to co-operate and agree to a draft commercial agreement enumerating the terms for commercializing the PDPS developed pursuant to the JDA.


 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written hereinabove. 

 

									
	Praj Industries Ltd.	 		 	Gevo, Inc.


									
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Atul Mulay
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Patrick Gruber

	Name: Mr. Atul Mulay	 		 	Name: Patrick Gruber
	Title: President-SBU Bio-Energy	 		 	Title: CEO


									
					
	Witness:	 	 /s/ Amol Smith
	 		 	Witness:	 	 /s/ Chris Ryan


 [**] - Indicates certain information has been redacted and filed separately with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the redacted portions.
p. 1



# OAR Box 1384 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 130 ) ll-E-9 0 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:07

AM Sheet 130 of 264P. 2

02/17/9 7 08:4 9 02/13/9 7 18:2 5 ©61 6 94 8 38S 0 ©1819941023 4 VIATE C CTR L SVC S PE S KI P N

C ©00 2 

# w-HO
Contac tRepor t Plasti c Composite s NESHA P
From : Date : Contact : Company : Gre g LaFlam , Pacifi c Environmenta l Services , Inc . Novembe r 6,199 6 Mr . Gar y Nicholson , Safet

y Directo r | EPAAI RDOCKE T Viatec/Proces s Storage Systems , Beldbg , M I Telephon e Number : (616)945-957 8
Contac tSummary : Th e Viate c facilit y produces corrosion-resistantstorage tanks b y th e filamentwindin g process . Eac h o f

th e thre e Tesi

n mixers has tw o propellers , on e a tth e middl e an d on e atth e botto m o f

th e shaft . Resi n i s mixe d i n 55-gallo n drums , wit h a loos e fitpolypropylen e cove r i n plac e durin g mixing . A slo t(about3 n x 10" ) i s cuti n th e to p o f th e cove r fo r th e entry o f th e mixe r shaft . (Note : PE S estimate s tha tthi s openin g i s les s tha

n 5 percen to f

th e tota l surfac e area o f th e cover. )

REPOR T I S 

## ACCURAT

E A ^ ^^MgV ;
No. 11M114.

#### Crews *v.*United States Court of Federal Claims.

Motion for leave to proceed as a veteran denied.
III

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 263

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 13, 1998

Received

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the seventeenth annual National Peace Officers’ Memorial Service.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),
2

HCON 263 RDS

1 SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR NATIONAL

2 PEACE OFFICERS’ MEMORIAL SERVICE.

3 The National Fraternal Order of Police and its auxil4 iary shall be permitted to sponsor a public event, the sev5 enteenth annual National Peace Officers’ Memorial Serv6 ice, on the Capitol Grounds on May 15, 1998, or on such

7 other date as the Speaker of the House of Representatives

8 and the Committee on Rules and Administration of the

9 Senate may jointly designate, in order to honor the more

10 than 160 law enforcement officers who died in the line

11 of duty during 1997.

12 SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

13 (a) IN GENERAL.—The event authorized to be con14 ducted on the Capitol Grounds under section 1 shall be

15 free of admission charge to the public and arranged not

16 to interfere with the needs of Congress, under conditions

17 to be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol and the

18 Capitol Police Board.

19 (b) EXPENSES AND LIABILITIES.—The National

20 Fraternal Order of Police and its auxiliary shall assume

21 full responsibility for all expenses and liabilities incident

22 to all activities associated with the event.

23 SEC. 3. EVENT PREPARATIONS.

24 (a) STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.—Subject to the

25 approval of the Architect of the Capitol, the National Fra26 ternal Order of Police and its auxiliary are authorized to
3

HCON 263 RDS

1 erect upon the Capitol Grounds such stage, sound amplifi2 cation devices, and other related structures and equip3 ment, as may be required for the event authorized to be

4 conducted on the Capitol Grounds under section 1.

5 (b) ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.—The Architect of

6 the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board are authorized

7 to make any such additional arrangements as may be re8 quired to carry out the event.

9 SEC. 4. APPLICABILITY OF PROHIBITIONS.

10 Nothing in this resolution may be construed to waive

11 the applicability of the prohibitions established by section

12 4 of the Act of July 31, 1946 (40 U.S.C. 193d; 60 Stat.

13 718), concerning sales, displays, and solicitations on the

14 Capitol Grounds.

Passed the House of Representatives May 12, 1998.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
No. 11-1288.

#### Steele et al. *v.*Green Tree Servicing, LLC, et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1677

ROBERT TOLBERT; ELLA M. TOLBERT,

Petitioners - Appellants,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 95-3978)

Submitted: November 19, 1998 Decided: December 1, 1998

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Tolbert, Ella M. Tolbert, Appellants Pro Se. Edward T.

Perelmuter, Loretta C. Argrett, Donald Bruce Tobin, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Stuart L. Brown, INTERNAL

REVENUE SERVICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* In light of this disposition, we deny the Tolberts’ motion

to appoint counsel.

2

PER CURIAM:

Robert and Ella M. Tolbert appeal from the tax court’s order

denying their second motion to vacate the court’s decision upholding the Commissioner’s determination of deficiencies with respect to their 1989, 1990, and 1991 federal income tax liabilities.

Because the tax court had no jurisdiction to vacate its decision

based on the grounds asserted in Tolberts’ motion, we affirm. See

26 U.S.C. § 748(c) (1994) (tax court’s decision becomes final 90

days after entry); Okon v. Commissioner, 26 F.3d 1025, 1026-27

(10th Cir. 1994) (holding that taxpayer’s second motion to vacate

tax court’s decision did not toll 90-day period in which to

appeal). Accordingly, we affirm.* We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Karreem Tislam Jabar WILEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Larry CARTLEDGE, Respondent-Appellee, and Attorney General Alan Wilson, Respondent.

No. 17-7239

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 22, 2018

Decided: February 26, 2018

Karreem Tislam Jabar Wiley, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*320PER CURIAM:

Karreem Tislam Jabar Wiley seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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. 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 Wiley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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*
No. 12-5424.

#### In re Estrada.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied, and ¡petition for writ of mandamus dismissed. See this Court’s Rule' 39.8.
Exhibit 10.1


 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE


 


This First
Amendment to Promissory Note (this “Amendment”) is made effective as of this 30th
day of November, 2017, by and between NeuroOne Medical Technologies Corporation,
a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and each of those persons and entities, severally and not jointly,
who are holders of the Company’s Promissory Notes (each, a “Holder” and collectively, the “Holders”).


 


Background


 


The Company and the
Holders entered into Subscription Agreements originally dated as of August 18, 2017 (the “Subscription Agreements”).
Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Subscription Agreements, the Company issued to the Holders Promissory Notes (the “Notes”)
and capital stock purchase warrants.


 


Pursuant to the consent
of each of the holders of the Notes, the Notes are hereby amended as follows:


 


Terms
and Conditions


 


1.       Maturity
Date. The definition of “Maturity Date” in Section 1.1 of the Notes is hereby deleted in its entirety and
replaced with:


 


“Maturity
Date” shall mean July 31, 2018.


 


2.       Warrant.
Section 2.3 of the Notes is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with:


 


Warrants.
Upon the Maturity Date, the Holder shall be issued Warrants exercisable for up to such number of shares of Common Stock equal to
the quotient obtained by multiplying the Principal Amount of this Note by 0.75, at an exercise price of $1.80 per share.


 


3.       Construction.
Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in the Subscription Agreements and the Notes,
as the case may be. The terms of this Amendment amend and modify the Subscription Agreements and the Notes as if fully set forth
in the Subscription Agreements and the Notes. If there is any conflict between the terms, conditions and obligations of this Amendment
and the Subscription Agreements or the Notes, this Amendment’s terms, conditions and obligations shall control. All other
provisions of the Subscription Agreements and the Notes not specifically modified by this Amendment are preserved.








 






     


     


    

 


In
Witness Whereof, this First Amendment to Promissory Notes is made effective as of the date first set forth above.


 


	
        THE
COMPANY:
	 
	 	 
	NeuroOne Medical 	 
	Technologies Corporation	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ David A. Rosa	 
	Name:	David A. Rosa	 
	Title:	Chief Executive Officer	 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Signature
Page to First Amendment to Promissory Notes
No. 11-10031.

#### Anderson *v.*Cortez Masto, Attorney General of Nevada, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Jim Wilkinson - Re: Ozone Authority SIP 

 

The lead notice may be removed on December 6, 2012. The ozone notice may be removed on January 5, 2013. 

Thanks 

>>> Samantha Kappalman 11/8/2012 1:47 PM >>> 

Ok, we'll need to prioritize what's up there. Some things will need to come off. For both of your SIP links, please 

send us an email when we can come down. 

 

Samantha Kappalman

Director of Communications

Maryland Department of the Environment

410-537-3010

443-934-1023 (cell)

www.mde.state.md.us

 

>>> Mary Jane Rutkowski 11/8/2012 1:44 PM >>> 

Good Afternoon 

Next week we will need to post another State Implementation Plan (SIP) on our web site. I need to have a link 

to the SIP on the MDE home page under Notices and Alerts, "110 Ozone Authority SIP". This link needs to be in 

place for a minimum of 30 days from the date we post the documents. We should have the documents on the 

server early next week.. Thanks for your assistance! 

From: Mary Jane Rutkowski

To: Kappalman, Samantha

Date: 11/8/2012 1:53 PM

Subject: Re: Ozone Authority SIP

CC: Thunell, Roger

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Setting... 12/10/2012 4:46:34 PM
# EUR-Lex - 32004D0067 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32004D0067

**2004/67/EC: Commission Decision of 6 January 2004 amending for the second time Decision 2000/807/EC to take into account the revised regions in the Netherlands (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2003) 5312) **

*
Official Journal L 013 , 20/01/2004 P. 0043 - 0043 *

Commission Decision

of 6 January 2004

amending for the second time Decision 2000/807/EC to take into account the revised regions in the Netherlands

(notified under document number C(2003) 5312)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2004/67/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 82/894/EEC of 21 December 1982 on the notification of animal diseases within the Community(1) and in particular Article 5 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Decision 2000/807/EC(2) lays down the codified form and the codes for the notification of animal diseases pursuant to Directive 82/894/EEC.

(2) During the development of their animal disease eradication plans, the Netherlands has adjusted the regions of their country. The boundaries of the new regions have been laid down, so as to make them easier to control in the case of an outbreak. The adjustment of the regions in the Netherlands affects the Animal Disease Notification System (ADNS) set out in Decision 2000/807/EC. The new regions (compartments) should therefore replace the current ones in the ADNS.

(3) Decision 2000/807/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(4) In order to protect confidentiality of the transmitted information, the Annex to this Decision should not be published.

(5) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Annex V to Decision 2000/807/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision shall apply from 1 January 2004.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 6 January 2004.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 378, 31.12.1982, p. 58. Directive as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 807/2003 (OJ L 122, 16.5.2003, p. 36).

(2) OJ L 326, 22.12.2000, p. 80. Decision as amended by Decision 2002/807/EC (OJ L 279, 17.10.2002, p. 50).
#### Malcolm BURBANK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kirstjen NIELSEN, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-35760

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 5, 2017 * San Francisco, California

Filed January 9, 2018

Nicklaus J. Misiti, Law offices of Niek-laus Misiti, PLLC., New York, NY, Devin T. Theriot-Orr, Attorney, Sunbird Law, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Joshua Samuel Press, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ — -U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Ap-pellees

Before: GRABER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL,** Chief District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, Chief Unit- . ed States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation,

MEMORANDUM ***

Plaintiff Malcolm Burbank appeals the district court’s decision dismissing this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We vacate the district court’s order, remand, and instruct the district court to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction.

1. We lack — and the district court lacked — jurisdiction to review Plaintiffs statutory claims. The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) clearly precludes judicial review of the Secretary’s “no risk” determinations because those determinations fall within the Secretary’s “sole and unreviewable discretion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I). Because each of Plaintiffs statutory claims challenges how the Secretary exercises that discretion, this court lacks jurisdiction to review them, City of Rialto v. W. Coast Loading Corp., 581 F.3d 865, 872-73 (9th Cir. 2009).1

2. We lack — and the district court lacked — jurisdiction to review Plaintiffs claim regarding his fundamental right to marry. Assuming, without deciding, that the INA permits us to review colorable constitutional claims, Plaintiffs substantive due process claim is not a colorable one. A non-citizen’s deportation does not violate his or her family’s substantive due process rights. Morales-Izquierdo v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 600 F.3d 1076, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010), overruled in part on other grounds by Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, 702 F.3d 504 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Holding otherwise here would undermine Congress’ plenary power over immigration. Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32, 103 S.Ct. 321, 74 L.Ed.2d 21 (1982).

*466VACATED and REMANDED with instructions. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

, The government argues that Plaintiff waived - a number of his statutory claims. Because those claims, too, are unreviewable, we need not consider whether Plaintiff waived them.
#### Bernard BAGLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David DUNLAP, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, and SC Parole Board; SC Dept of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services, Respondents.

No. 17-7379

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 22, 2018

Decided: February 27, 2018

Bernard Bagley, Appellant Pro Se. Tommy Evans, Jr., SOUTH CAROLINA DEr PARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON SERVICE, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. ■

PER CURIAM:

Bernard Bagley, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 Bagley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, deny a certificate, of appealability, 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*
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 93 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 93

Making majority party appointments to the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and the Committee on Indian 
                                Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               March 24 (legislative day, March 23), 1995

 Mr. Dole submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Making majority party appointments to the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and the Committee on Indian 
                                Affairs.

    Resolved, That the following shall constitute the majority party's 
membership on the following Senate committees for the 104th Congress, 
or until their successors are appointed:
    Energy and Natural Resources: Mr. Murkowski (chairman), Mr. 
Hatfield, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Craig, Mr. Campbell, Mr. 
Thomas, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Grams, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Burns.
    Veterans' Affairs: Mr. Simpson (chairman), Mr. Murkowski, Mr. 
Specter, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Craig.
    Indian Affairs: Mr. McCain (chairman), Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Gorton, 
Mr. Domenici, Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Thomas, 
and Mr. Hatch.
                                 <all>
```