alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.16



 Exhibit 10.16 

FIRST AMENDMENT 
 TO

 LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT 

This First Amendment to Loan and Security Agreement (the “Amendment”), is entered into as of March 15, 2012, by and between
SQUARE 1 BANK (“Bank”) and TOBIRA THERAPEUTICS, INC. (the “Borrower”) 
 RECITALS 

Borrower and Bank are parties to that certain Loan and Security Agreement dated as of November 29, 2011 (as amended from time to time, the
“Agreement”). The parties desire to amend the Agreement in accordance with the terms of this Amendment. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the
parties agree as follows: 
  

	1)	Section 6.6 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated, as follows: 

 “Primary
Depository”. Borrower shall maintain all its depository and operating accounts with Bank and its primary investment accounts with Bank or Bank’s affiliates; provided that Borrower shall be permitted to maintain accounts at State Street
so long as at least 50% of Borrower’s Cash is held at Bank. 
  

	2)	Unless otherwise defined, all initially capitalized terms in this Amendment shall be as defined in the Agreement. The Agreement, as amended hereby, shall be and remain in full force and effect in accordance with its
respective terms and hereby is ratified and confirmed in all respects. Except as expressly set forth herein, the execution, delivery, and performance of this Amendment shall not operate as a waiver of, or as an amendment of, any right, power, or
remedy of Bank under the Agreement, as in effect prior to the date hereof. Borrower ratifies and reaffirms the continuing effectiveness of all agreements entered into in connection with the Agreement. 


 

	3)	Borrower represents and warrants that the representations and warranties contained in the Agreement are true and correct as of the date of this Amendment. 


 

	4)	This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one instrument. 


 

	5)	As a condition to the effectiveness of this Amendment, Bank shall have received, in form and substance satisfactory to Bank, the following: 


 

	 	a)	this Amendment, duly executed by Borrower; 

  

	 	b)	payment of all Bank Expenses, including Bank’s expenses for the documentation of this Amendment and any related documents, and any UCC, good standing or intellectual property search or filing fees, which may be
debited from any of Borrower’s accounts; and 

  

	 	c)	such other documents and completion of such other matters, as Bank may reasonably deem necessary or appropriate. 


[Remainder of page intentionally left blank] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the first date above written. 

 

									
	TOBIRA THERAPEUTICS, INC.	  		  	SQUARE 1 BANK
					
	By:	 	/s/ Andrew Hindman	  		  	By:	  	/s/ Scott R. Foote
	Name:	 	Andrew Hindman	  		  	Name:	  	Scott R. Foote
	Title:	 	President & CEO	  		  	Title:	  	SVP

 [Signature Page to First Amendment to Loan and Security Agreement]
No. 10-11138.

#### Gerardo Lopez, Petitioner v. Larry Small, Warden.

565 U.S. 869, 132 S. Ct. 219,

181 L. Ed. 2d 121,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6448.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 419 Fed. Appx. 717.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3067 

To provide that prisoners serving a term of imprisonment for a terrorism 

related offense are ineligible for early release, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 3, 2019 

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide that prisoners serving a term of imprisonment 

for a terrorism related offense are ineligible for early 

release, 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 ‘‘Maximum Incarcer5 ation for Terrorists Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EARLY RELEASE EXCEPTION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3624(b) of title 18, 

8 United States Code, is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (1)— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3067 IH

1 (A) by striking ‘‘Subject to paragraph (2)’’ 

2 each place it appears and inserting ‘‘Subject to 

3 paragraphs (2) and (5)’’; and 

4 (B) by striking ‘‘year’’ and inserting 

5 ‘‘year,’’; and 

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

7 ‘‘(5) A prisoner may not receive credit toward 

8 service of the prisoner’s sentence for a crime under 

9 chapter 113b of this title.’’. 

10 (b) APPLICABILITY.—This Act and the amendments 

11 made by this Act shall apply with respect to any prisoner 

12 sentenced on or after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

Amendment No. 1 
 to
the 
 TRI Pointe Homes, Inc. 

2013 Long-Term Incentive Plan 

Pursuant to Section 5.2 of the TRI Pointe Homes, Inc. 2013 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), this First Amendment (this
“Amendment”) to the Plan is made and shall be effective as of June 23, 2014, subject to the requisite approval of this Amendment by the stockholders of TRI Pointe Homes, Inc. (the “Company”). 

1. The first sentence of Section 1.5 of the Plan is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 

Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 5.7 and to all other limits set forth in this Section 1.5, 10,942,517 shares of Common
Stock shall be available for all awards under this Plan, of which no more than 10,942,517 shares of Common Stock in the aggregate may be issued under the Plan in connection with Incentive Stock Options. 

2. The following paragraph shall be added to the end of Section 1.5 of the Plan: 

Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 5.7, notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, options and SARs may be granted, in the
aggregate, to any one participant with respect to a maximum of 2,000,000 shares of Common Stock during a single calendar year. In addition, any Stock Award (other than a Bonus Stock Award) or Performance Award may be granted, in the aggregate, to
any one participant, with respect to a maximum of 2,000,000 shares of Common Stock during a single calendar year. Such numbers shall be calculated and adjusted pursuant to Section 5.7 only to the extent that such calculation or adjustment will
not affect the status of any award intended to qualify as “performance-based compensation” under Section 162(m) of the Code. The maximum cash amount payable pursuant to that portion of a Performance Award earned for any 12-month
period to any participant under this Plan shall not exceed $10.0 million. 
 3. Except as expressly provided herein, all other provisions of
the Plan shall remain in full force and effect and are hereby ratified and confirmed. 
 The remainder of this page is intentionally left
blank. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this amendment to the Plan is executed as of June 23, 2014. 

 

			
	TRI POINTE HOMES, INC., a Delaware
corporation
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Douglas F. Bauer

	Name:	 	Douglas F. Bauer
	Title:	 	Chief Executive Officer
No. 11-28.

#### Bernice Malcolm, Petitioner v. Honeoye Falls Lima Central School District.

565 U.S. 879, 132 S. Ct. 244,

181 L. Ed. 2d 139,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5310,

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Same case below, 399 Fed. Appx. 680.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 31.1


                                 CERTIFICATIONS

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

I, Hoolae Paoa, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Mid-State Raceway, Inc.
and Subsidiary;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date: January 10, 2004

/s/ Hoolae Paoa
Hoolae Paoa
Chief Executive Officer


                                       12
The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the

1

District of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-4054

___________

Richard Mathis; Doyle Mathis; *

Leona Mathis; Scot Mathis, *

 * 

Appellants, * 

v. * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the

United States of America, * District of South Dakota.

 *

Appellee. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

 Submitted: May 14, 1997

 Filed: June 2, 1997

___________

Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, 

Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Richard, Doyle, Leona, and Scot Mathis appeal the district court's dismissal of 1

their 26 U.S.C. § 7433 unauthorized-collection action. We affirm.
-2-

The Mathises brought this action against five federal employees. The district

court granted the defendants' motion to substitute the United States as the defendant,

and dismissed the Mathises' action, concluding that the individual named defendants

could not be sued under section 7433; that section 7433 precluded an action against the

individuals under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,

403 U.S. 388 (1971); and that the complaint failed to state a claim against the United

States under section 7433. 

Reviewing de novo, see First Commercial Trust Co., N.A. v. Colt's Mfg. Co.,

77 F.3d 1081, 1083 (8th Cir. 1996), we agree with the district court that the Mathises

could not bring an action against the named individuals under either section 7433 or

Bivens. See 26 U.S.C. § 7433 (§ 7433 claim may be brought only against United

States); Vennes v. An Unknown Number of Unidentified Agents of the United States,

26 F.3d 1448, 1453-54 (8th Cir. 1994) (no Bivens action against federal official where

§ 7433 provides remedy), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1076 (1995). As the Mathises' action

could be maintained only against the United States, the Mathises were not harmed by

the district court's substitution of the United States as defendant. We agree with the

district court that the Mathises failed to state a section 7433 claim against the United

States. See Shaw v. United States, 20 F.3d 182, 184 (5th Cir.) (to prove § 7433 claim,

plaintiff must demonstrate Internal Revenue Service's collection methods violated

regulation or statute), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1041 (1994). The Mathises' remaining

arguments are unsupported and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment

of the district court.

The Mathises' motion to supplement their appellate brief is denied.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
*DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019*

*Change 13*

**AP8.2. APPENDIX 8.2**

**REQUISITION**

AP8.3-1

APPENDIX 8.3
1

U.S.	Department	of	Transportation

Docket	Management	System

1200	New	Jersey	Ave.,	SE

Washington	DC	20590

RE:	Exemption	Request	Pursuant	To	Section	333	of	the	FAA	Reform	Act	

of	 2012 and	 Part	 11	 of	 the	 Federal	 Aviation	 Regulations	 from	 Certain	

Provisions	of	14	C.F.R.

To	Whom	It	May	Concern:

I	am	writing	pursuant	to	the	FAA	Modernization	and	Reform	Act	

of	2012	(the	“Reform	Act”)	and	14	C.F.R.	Part	11,	Z-Drones	LLC,	seeks	an	

exemption	from	Federal	Aviation	Regulations	(“FARs”)	listed	in	

Appendices	A	and	B	to	allow	commercial	operation	of	its	UAs,	so	long	as	

such	operations	are	conducted	within	and	under	the	conditions	outlined	

herein	or	as	may	be	established	by	the	FAA	in	a	grant	of	this	petition.	

This	request	is	substantially	similar	to	other	data	collection	petitions	

previously	approved	and	should	be	considered	under	the	expedited	

summary	grant	procedure.	Additionally,	this	petition	should	be	eligible	

for	the	summary	grant	because	of	the	voluntary	altitude	restriction	to	

200	feet	above	ground	level	(AGL).	

Approval	of	the	exemption	for	Z-Drones	will	allow	commercial	

operation	of	the	DJI	Inspire	1	and	DJI	Spreading	Wings	S1000	for	real	

estate	photography	and	videography	in	Class	G	airspace	nationwide,	or	

as	otherwise	prescribed	by	an	Air	Traffic	Organization	(ATO)	issued	

COA.	The	UAs	covered	by	this	petition	are battery-powered	crafts,	

weighing	approximately	6	lbs	and	24	lbs,	inclusive	of	battery	and	

payload.	Operation	of	the	UAs	under	the	strict	conditions	proposed	

below	will	provide	an	equivalent	level	of	safety,	as	Congress	intended,	

while	still	allowing	commercial	operations.	Operations	using	these	UAs	

are	far	safer	than	conventional	operations	conducted	with	helicopters	

and	fixed-wing	aircraft	that	weigh	thousands	of	pounds,	carry	highly	

flammable	fuel,	and	operate	in	close	proximity	to	the	ground,	trees,	

infrastructure,	and	people.	

Congress	directed	the	FAA	to	consider	seven	factors	in	deciding	

whether	to	approve	Section	333	exemption	petitions	- size,	weight,	
2

speed,	operational	capability,	proximity	to	airports,	proximity	to	

populated	areas,	and	operation	within	visual	line	of	sight.	In	this	case,	

each	factor	supports	the	exemption	request.	In	particular,	the	UA	is	

small,	and	will	operate	at	slow	speeds	and	close	to	the	ground.	Thus,	it	

will	be	able	to	operate	safely	and	efficiently	take	aerial	photography	and	

videography.	The	substantial	increase	of	safety	and	decrease	of	risk	to	

human	life	and	property	weighs	heavily	in	favor	of	granting	the	

exemption.

I	am	prepared	and	willing	to	modify	or	amend	any	part	of	this	request	to	

satisfy	the	need	for	an	equivalent	level	of	safety.	I	look	forward	to	

hearing	back.	Please	contact	me	at	any	time	on	my	direct	phone	line	at	

(630)-707-4598	for	additional	information	or	clarification

Sincerely,

Jeff Zita

Jeffrey	M.	Zita

Owner	&	Operator,	Z-Drones	LLC
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 21
                                                                  ----------


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
                         ---------------------------

    The following are the subsidiaries of the Company. All subsidiaries are
wholly-owned, directly or indirectly, by the Company, unless otherwise
noted.

Entity
Jurisdiction of Incorporation


Falcon Products (Shenzen) Limited
The People's Republic of China

Falcon Holdings, Inc.
Missouri

The Falcon Companies International, Inc.
Missouri

Falcon Mimon a.s. (87.4% ownership)
Czech Republic

Falcon De Juarez, S.A. de C.V.
Mexico

         Fundicianes Tecnicas, S.A.
         Mexico

Howe Furniture Corporation
New York

         Johnson Industries, Inc.
         Illinois

         Howe A/S
         Denmark

Shelby Williams Industries, Inc.
Delaware

         Sellers & Josephson, Inc.
         New Jersey

         Shelby FSC Corporation
         U.S. Virgin Islands

         Madison Furniture Industries, Inc.
         Mississippi

         Thonet International (UK) Limited
         England

         Industrial Mueblera Shelby Williams, S.A. de  C.V.
         Mexico
#### Robert L. ROSE and Marie Rose, his wife, Appellants, v. JOHN WANAMAKER, PHILADELPHIA, INC.

No. 14700.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued April 9, 1964.

Decided April 17, 1964.

Avram G. Adler, Philadelphia, Pa. (Abraham E. Freedman, Freedman, Landy & Lorry, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellants.

William J. McKinley, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.

Before KALODNER, STALEY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On review of the record we find no error. The Judgment of the District Court of May 23, 1963, entered pursuant to the jury’s verdict in favor of the defendant will be affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2



                            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 Federal Screw Works (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Annual Report"),
I, W.T. ZurSchmiede, Jr., Chairman of the Board, Chief Financial Officer,
Secretary and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

         (1) The Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
and

         (2) The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

April 14, 2004
                                        /s/ W.T. ZurSchmiede
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        W.T. ZurSchmiede, Jr., Chairman of the
                                        Board, Chief Financial Officer and
                                        Secretary of Federal Screw Works
Calendar Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

billion gallons

Baseline - EPA Proposed Rule (May 2015)

 Overall RFS 15.930 16.300 17.400 17.501 17.611

 Conventional Gap (Implied Ethanol) 13.250 13.400 14.000 14.000 14.000

 Advanced 2.680 2.900 3.400 3.501 3.611

 Biodiesel 1.630 1.700 1.800 1.900 1.900

 Cellulosic 0.033 0.106 0.206 0.256 0.306

 Advanced Gap 0.120 0.159 0.404 0.300 0.360

 California CARB (sugarcane ethanol) 0.120 0.180 0.240 0.300 0.360

NBB: Minimum Biodiesel Volume Obligations

 Overall RFS 15.930 16.300 18.000 18.000 18.000

 Conventional Gap (Implied Ethanol) 13.250 13.400 14.000 14.000 14.000

 Advanced 2.680 2.900 4.000 4.000 4.000

 Biodiesel 1.630 1.700 2.000 2.300 2.300

 Cellulosic 0.033 0.106 0.206 0.256 0.306

 Advanced Gap 0.120 0.159 0.694 0.179 0.129

 California CARB (sugarcane ethanol) 0.120 0.180 0.240 0.300 0.360

Feedstocks Summary, Minimum Scenario Levels and Change from Proposed Rule (Ba

Marketing Year (Oct/Sep) 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

Feedstocks Used for Biodiesel Production (methyl ester)

 Soybean Oil Million Pounds 5,303 6,057 6,150 6,489

 Corn Oil Million Pounds 1,409 2,021 2,174 2,267

 Canola Oil Million Pounds 1,100 910 772 715

 Inedible Tallow Million Pounds 374 430 468 495

 White Grease Million Pounds 471 479 476 469

 Yellow Grease Million Pounds 1,127 1,158 1,154 1,131

 Brown Grease Million Pounds 156 155 156 158

 Poultry Fat Million Pounds 147 188 194 186

 Other Fats and Used Vegetable Oils Million Pounds 847 847 847 847

 Total Million Pounds 10,934 12,246 12,392 12,757

Feedstock Share

 Soybean Oil Percent 48.5% 49.5% 49.6% 50.9%

 Corn Oil Percent 12.9% 16.5% 17.5% 17.8%

 Canola Oil Percent 10.1% 7.4% 6.2% 5.6%

 Inedible Tallow Percent 3.4% 3.5% 3.8% 3.9%

 White Grease Percent 4.3% 3.9% 3.8% 3.7%

 Yellow Grease Percent 10.3% 9.5% 9.3% 8.9%

 Brown Grease Percent 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2%

RFS Volume Obligation Assumptions
 Poultry Fat Percent 1.3% 1.5% 1.6% 1.5%

 Other Percent 7.8% 6.9% 6.8% 6.6%

 Total Percent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Feedstock Prices

 Soybean Oil Cents Per Pound29.32 29.55 29.86 30.05

 Corn Oil Cents Per Pound21.69 19.34 18.84 18.67

 Canola Oil Cents Per Pound35.35 37.73 39.55 40.82

 Inedible Tallow Cents Per Pound26.01 24.21 23.55 23.32

 White Grease Cents Per Pound24.43 22.78 23.91 25.79

 Yellow Grease Cents Per Pound22.00 20.91 21.47 22.74

 Brown Grease Cents Per Pound12.74 12.89 13.11 13.31

 Poultry Fat Cents Per Pound23.30 21.83 22.43 23.98

 Other Cents Per Pound23.94 22.43 22.84 23.96
Proposed Rule (Baseline)

15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

change from baseline

642 818 791 763

318 403 404 294

134 185 154 146

26 35 34 31

2 4 5 5

49 72 57 39

9 12 13 12

15 22 16 10

0 0 0 0

1,194 1,552 1,474 1,298

0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.9%

1.7% 1.4% 1.3% 0.6%

0.2% 0.6% 0.5% 0.6%

-0.2% -0.2% -0.2% -0.1%

-0.5% -0.5% -0.5% -0.4%

-0.8% -0.7% -0.7% -0.6%

-0.1% 0.0% 0.0% -0.1%
-0.1% -0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

-0.9% -1.0% -1.0% -0.8%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

2.21 2.72 2.92 2.67

1.09 1.36 1.42 1.57

1.81 1.83 2.07 1.69

1.43 2.02 2.16 2.05

1.77 2.25 2.23 2.08

0.77 0.95 1.52 1.82

0.46 0.64 0.64 0.58

0.53 0.56 1.35 1.85

1.13 1.44 1.82 1.95
No. 10-11119.

#### Chazzie T. Isom, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 868, 132 S. Ct. 216,

181 L. Ed. 2d 118,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6585.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 635 F.3d 904.