alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

July 12, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00043-CV

IN RE FAST TRAC TRANSPORTATION, L.L.C., Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

281st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2021-44126

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On January 25, 2022, relator Fast Trac Transportation, L.L.C. filed a petition 

for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also 

Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable 

Christine Weems, presiding judge of the 281st District Court of Harris County, to 

vacate the trial court’s October 25, 2021 order granting Defendant Tri Element’s, 
2

Inc.’s motion for leave to file letter of credit in lieu of surety bond and January 2, 

2022 order denying Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider.

On June 29, 2022, relator filed an unopposed voluntary withdrawal of its 

petition for writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we grant relator’s motion and dismiss 

relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Zimmerer and Wilson.
1The Honorable John B. Jones, United States District Judge for the District of

South Dakota, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 98-4120

________________

Steve Mehdi Ghassemlou,

Appellant,

v.

Hennepin County; Hennepin County

Medical Center,

Appellees.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

District of Minnesota.

[UNPUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: June 14, 1999

 Filed: September 15, 1999

________________

Before HANSEN and MAGILL, Circuit Judges, and JONES,1 District Judge. 

________________

PER CURIAM.

Steve Mehdi Ghassemlou, a resident alien from Iran, was hired as a nursing

assistant by Hennepin County Medical Center. He began his employment as a

probationary employee. Ghassemlou was terminated after only two months of

employment. Ghassemlou brought an action against Hennepin County and the
2

Hennepin County Medical Center alleging gender and national origin discrimination in

violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), and

the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. § 363.03. The district court granted the

defendants' motion for summary judgment and Ghassemlou appeals. Having carefully

reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude an extended discussion is not

warranted and affirm for the reasons set out in the district court's opinion. See 8th Cir.

R. 47B. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

?wruuT 13, 1939 

Au-htia, TuA* 

lkrr Nr. irinblor 

tmau ate of 

v88 rueire trimI put 

Eonornblo Tr Y. Trlmblo 

Irlret &rie%nut St&e Supertntadeut 

~aHisanS of Edueatlan 

7hr Mnron Cnek 

8 86hooll88t I*-, nm 

mu* About halt o? 

Point Sohool in 

Bandszr aahool in 

nad 

forth& 8mount of #ore l tud8nt8' ato 

8ountr loneri but they hart refuure41 Tha tmaSe88 

hr?e also.reiu8ed tx~ pay tuition to hat8r bointii thiah 

i8 8 ?%8te Sia 88h001. 

*'I8 t$r Ya8on Croer School Matriot oblig&ed $0 

PI3 high 8ObOO~ ttlitioa On it8 pupil8 who 8N trUS?8mi 

80 lOit 88 th8 618tZ'iOt h88 OoSry 8T8il8bl8 trol t.E 

l Otle8tiOA8 Qi p 88t f,8r A.í 
..- 
wan. T. 

m.. b. 
6i~tl?i$o~u~~?t”“W ti ?U#W CrhO 8fO WU 8iX 

-8 Ol.4 86 th8 k 

80bO~8ti. $.8r f 84I8h HNOA Ol? 

lUl.h& Of th8 

&UUdiM UOidO dthiA. . 

8 &+AXWAtS OZ 1.01 

. 8814 88hOO1 di8tri.t." 

i. l . 

TOW AA-r60 thi. intU&'O~tO~~ i8 iA thA *ml'lAAtiV8, 

that the di8trlot J, liable ii th8 ohllE eota88 ~lthintho 

8bO.V. llrtrd 086.&0~~ 88 60 8&A 8Ad lUOidA8 rithln th8 d%StriOt. 

4. TOW AUt &WO~SitiO~ 18: 

"1 d8tO 8&84 the trU&OOS t0 B~&A VOUOhAr8 iOr $h. 

WUXit Of th880 8ttldUit. 868t8 S& OOUSt)’ AOAAJ but thy 

have retu~e4.~ 

fn 8a8wer to this, JOU 8re sdrired that tbo proper tribune1 

t88tOd with jUl'184bt1oll O? ut$8- Of tkd. kind, Uh8A 8pp11.4 to, 

a8n ad 8fll e08@0i thr, WOtbI6 Ot 6h8 Obu~tiOn h qU88tiOA br 

propor judgmrtat. 

l ~8~~6rU.t.88 h8YS 8180 ~0fAS.d t0 p18r tUitfOA 

to Centor Point-which 18 8 strt8 8td 8ohoAl." 

lia uwwer te Ws inquiry,. iou 8ro rdvfrsd t&t ir tho 

St& S l i8í88hOO18 l nWiliA6 k88h8r'8 814, t&M $h8 88d.w 

4fAtriOt 18 lfrblo fOr th&t PUWat Of the UhOb ttl%tlW, th8t 18 

AOt pi4 by th. 8-t. 8%4 WJAO 

if M A818tf ail i8 &VOA 60 tL 

t0 t&8 lWOitifi& 4i8t~f.6, b&t' 

no4lrlag dlmtrlot *ha 8n4 ln 

thehe WOAt th8 &A&w (iirkkt 18 118blS tOr thr l&O18 Of tb $A&- 

. 

t8oh ud ti of th. 88OW l'OgoclitiOM'hW~ bWtk aMWWe4 

Wtk k818t&tt&X8 h88 bWR &V048ad.11tOn8nW.t81itth. P 

btXIt8 8aa/or Ud~g dlSt?k86 Of th8 8~1~86f08 f~ ~UOStiOb 

BallerJsb &I86 thi. has 8zuwArAd *aah ot ttm ln4umR8 

mad8 by yeu, and tb4t 01 &vs male the 8itwtlon slew, *i 8ro
Exhibit 10.1


 





SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE 


MUSTANG BIO, INC.


2016 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN


 


This Second Amendment to the Mustang Bio, Inc.
2016 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), as amended on June 14, 2018, is hereby adopted this 17th day of June, 2021, by the
Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Mustang Bio, Inc. (the “Company”).


 


WITNESETH:


 


WHEREAS, the Company adopted the Plan for
the purposes set forth therein; and


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15.1
of the Plan, the Board has the right to amend the Plan with respect to certain matters, provided that any material increase in the number
of Shares available under the Plan shall be subject to stockholder approval; and


 


WHEREAS, Board has approved and authorized
this Second Amendment to the Plan and has recommended that the stockholders of the Company approve this Second Amendment;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the
Plan is hereby amended, subject to and effective as of the date of stockholder approval hereof, in the following particulars:


 


		1.	Section 5.1 of the Plan is hereby amended by increasing the share references in such section from
5,000,000 to 8,000,000, so that such section reads in its entirety as follows:



 


“5.1. NUMBER OF SHARES. Subject
to adjustment as provided in Sections 5.2 and Section 14.1, the aggregate number of Shares reserved and available for issuance
pursuant to Awards granted under the Plan shall be 8,000,000. The maximum number of Shares that may be issued upon exercise of Incentive
Stock Options granted under the Plan shall be 8,000,000. The maximum aggregate number of Shares associated with any Award granted under
the Plan in any calendar year to any one Non-Employee Director shall be 100,000 Shares.”


 


		2.	Except as specifically set forth herein, the terms of the Plan shall be and remain unchanged, and the
Plan as amended shall remain in full force and effect.



 


The foregoing is hereby acknowledged as being
the Second Amendment to the Plan, as adopted by the Board on April 28, 2021, and approved by the Company’s stockholders on June
17, 2021.


 


	 	MUSTANG
    BIO, INC.
	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ Manuel Litchman, M.D.
	 	Manuel
    Litchman, M.D.
	 	President
    and Chief Executive Officer
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2541 

To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

to add Rhode Island to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 21, 2015 

Mr. LANGEVIN (for himself and Mr. CICILLINE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act to add Rhode Island to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 

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 ‘‘Rhode Island Fisher5 men’s Fairness Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ADDITION OF RHODE ISLAND TO THE MID-ATLAN7 TIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL. 

8 Section 302(a)(1)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fish9 ery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 

10 1852(a)(1)(B)) is amended— 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2541 IH

1 (1) by inserting ‘‘Rhode Island,’’ after ‘‘States 

2 of’’; 

3 (2) by inserting ‘‘Rhode Island,’’ after ‘‘except 

4 North Carolina,’’; 

5 (3) by striking ‘‘21’’ and inserting ‘‘23’’; and 

6 (4) by striking ‘‘13’’ and inserting ‘‘14’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
LTNITED STATES OF AMEzuCA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

VS

MALIK DEAS

Respondent

Docket Number 2023 -0069

Enforcement Activity No. 7 634021

CONSENT ORDER

Issued: March 2. 2023

Bv Administrative Law Judee: Honorable Timothv G. Stueve

Appearanccs:

LT Kyle Bums

USCG Sector Jacksonville

For the Coast Guard

Malik Deas, Pro Se

For Respondent

I
NS o o G SET EME AG ME

On or about Febru ary 27,2023,the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval

of Settlement Agreement and Entry ofconsent order to be approved as a settlement of the case

under 33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

I have carefully reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find it is fair and

reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of 33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDERED, the Settlement Agreement is

APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constitute

full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

Done and datedMarch 2,2023, at

Alameda, California

Timothy G. Stueve

Administrative Law Judge

U.S. Coast Guard
#### Stacie Calian, Appellant, v Eric Calian, Respondent.

Submitted December 4, 2006;

decided February 20, 2007

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed as untimely. The prior motion for leave to appeal made to the Appellate Division was untimely (see Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals § 12:3, at 436-437 [3d ed rev 2005]).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6209

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

IPOLITO CAMPOS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (2:03-cr-00032-HCM)

Submitted: April 26, 2007 Decided: May 3, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ipolito Campos, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Evan DePadilla, Assistant

United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Ipolito Campos appeals the district court’s order denying

his self-styled motion to “Invok[e] the Inherent Equity

Jurisdiction of this Court as Recognized in the Savings Clause of

F.R.C.P. 60(b),” after Campos rejected the district court’s notice

and attempt to construe Campos’ motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. United States v. Campos, No. 2:03-cr-00032-HCM (E.D. Va.

Dec. 19, 2006). 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
# C_2010173EN.01002701.xml

| 30.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/27

---

Corrigendum to the Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for the financial year 2010

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 86 of 31 March 2010
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 86 of 31 March 2010

On page 41, column ‘Appropriations 2010’ of the table, the figures for Chapter 3 3 should read ‘1 583 002’, ‘Title 3 — Total’ should read ‘7 913 697’ and ‘GRAND TOTAL’ should read ‘14 789 797’.

---
No. 76-5850.

#### Detwiler *v.*United States et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
NUMBER 13-13-00428-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

EDWARD CASTILLO, Appellant,

v.

CUAHUTEMOCH COBARRUBIAS, Appellee.

On appeal from 370th District Court 

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

This case is before the Court on an agreed motion for reversal and remand to the 

trial court for further proceedings. The parties have reached an agreement with regard 

to the disposition of the matters currently on appeal. Pursuant to agreement, the parties

request this Court to reverse the trial court’s default judgments and remand this case for 

further proceedings in the trial court. We GRANT the motion and REVERSE without 
2

reference to the merits of the case and REMAND this case to the trial court for further 

proceedings. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B), 43.2(d).

In accordance with the agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against the party 

incurring same. See id. at 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 

28th day of May, 2015.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001001601
<NAME> INTERNET HOLDINGS INC
<CURRENCY> US
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          100,316
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,688
<OTHER-SE>                                   (102,004)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (18,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (18,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (18,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Jeffrey H. Buchalter, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ILEX Oncology, Inc;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: May 7, 2004
/s/ JEFFREY H. BUCHALTERJeffrey H. Buchalter
#### NIXON, Appellant, v. TYLER, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 16, 1896.)

Proceeding for the examination of Carile M. Nixon, third person in proceedings supplementary to execution.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joe Young, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), rendered February 18, 1981, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was for the suppression of identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the complainant’s identification testimony should have been suppressed due to the alleged suggestiveness of the photographic identification procedures is without merit. We agree with the hearing court’s determination that the People clearly established an independent basis for both the in-court and lineup identifications *(see, People v Adams,*53 NY2d 241; *People v Watkins,*121 AD2d 583, *lv denied*68 NY2d 918; *People v Lynch,*117 AD2d 823, *lv denied*68 NY2d 670). The complainant had ample opportunity to observe the defendant’s unique features at close range throughout the lA-hour incident. Furthermore, in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, including both direct and circumstantial evidence of identity, admission of evidence which implicitly bolstered the identification testimony was harmless error *(see, People v Johnson,*57 NY2d 969; *People v Mobley,*56 NY2d 584). Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.
#### Cecilia N. Mickey, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Danielle I. Mickey, an Infant, Respondent, v John J. Conley et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leonard Cohen, J.), entered on December 30, 1985, unanimously affirmed. Plaintiffs are directed to make the payment pursuant to said order on or before January 2, 1987. Respondents shall recover of appellants $50 costs and disbursements of this appeal. No opinion. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Ross, Lynch, Milonas and Ellerin, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 74 (Monday, April 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 20456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9545]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6575-8]


Effluent Guidelines Task Force Open Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Effluent Guidelines Task Force, an EPA advisory committee, 
will hold a meeting to discuss the Agency's Effluent Guidelines 
Program. The meeting is open to the public.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 24, 2000 from 9 a.m. 
to 5 p.m., and Thursday, May 25, 2000 from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at the Hotel Washington, 515 
15th Street, NW, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Randolph, Office of Water 
(4303), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460; 
telephone (202) 260-5373; fax (202) 260-7185.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Environmental Protection Agency gives notice 
of a meeting of the Effluent Guidelines Task Force (EGTF). The EGTF is 
a subcommittee of the National Advisory Council for Environmental 
Policy and Technology (NACEPT), the external policy advisory board to 
the Administrator of EPA.
    The EGTF was established in July of 1992 to advise EPA on the 
Effluent Guidelines Program, which develops regulations for dischargers 
of industrial wastewater pursuant to Title III of the Clean Water Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). The Task Force consists of members appointed 
by EPA from industry, citizen groups, state and local government, the 
academic and scientific communities, and EPA regional offices. The Task 
Force was created to offer advice to the Administrator on the long-term 
strategy for the effluent guidelines program, and particularly to 
provide recommendations on a process for expediting the promulgation of 
effluent guidelines. The Task Force generally does not discuss specific 
effluent guideline regulations currently under development.
    The meeting is open to the public, and limited seating for the 
public is available on a first-come, first-served basis. The public may 
submit written comments to the Task Force regarding improvements to the 
Effluent Guidelines Program. Comments should be sent to Beverly 
Randolph at the above address. Comments submitted by May 12, 2000 will 
be considered by the Task Force at or subsequent to the meeting.

    Dated: April 4, 2000.
Geoffrey H. Grubbs,
Director, Office of Science and Technology.
[FR Doc. 00-9545 Filed 4-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P