alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.93EXECUTION
VERSION
 CRITICAL THERAPEUTICS, INC.
 Restricted
Stock Agreement dated as of September 16, 2008
 Name of Recipient:
    
    Scott B. TownsendNumber of shares of
restricted common stock
awarded:
    
    That number of shares of the Companys common
stock that will represent one percent (1.0%)
of the outstanding equity, on a fully diluted
basis, of the Company immediately following
the closing of the Companys merger
transaction with Cornerstone BioPharma
Holdings, Inc. and after giving effect to the
related reverse stock split148,722 (specific number of shares
under foregoing grant language to be inserted
by the Companys CFO following closing of the
Companys merger transaction with Cornerstone
BioPharma Holdings, Inc. and confirmed by the
parties initials below)Recipient: /s/
SBT
    
    Company: /s/ DPGrant Date:
    
    The first business day following the closing
date of the Companys merger transaction with
Cornerstone BioPharma Holdings, Inc.
  CRITICAL THERAPEUTICS, INC.By:
    /s/ Trevor PhillipsName:
    Trevor Phillips, Ph.D.Title:
    President and CEO  /s/ Scott B. TownsendScott B. Townsend 
 1 of 5




---



##### 



CRITICAL THERAPEUTICS, INC.
 Restricted Stock Agreement
  Issuance of Restricted Shares
   Vesting
  Forfeiture of Unvested Restricted Shares Upon Employment Termination.
  2 of 5




---



##### 



Restrictions on Transfer
 provided
 Restrictive Legends
   Rights as a Shareholder
  3 of 5




---



##### 



th
 Provisions of the Plan
  Tax Matters
 Acknowledgments; Section 83(b) Election
 Withholding
 4 of 5




---



##### 



Miscellaneous
 Authority of the Board
 No Right to Continued Employment
 Governing Law
 Recipients Acknowledgments
 5 of 5
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

          We consentto the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(File No. 2-85849, 333-118789 and 333-187821) of Nature Vision, Inc. of ourreport dated March 23, 2006, which appears on page F-1 of this annual report onForm 10-K(SB) for the year ended December 31, 2005. 

/s/ VIRCHOW, KRAUSE &COMPANY, LLP

Minneapolis, MinnesotaMarch 30, 2006

----
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 30, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29236-29237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13449]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 93-314 RM-8396]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Cadiz and Oak Grove, KY

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: At the request of Ham Broadcasting, Inc. this document sets 
aside the action in this proceeding which substituted Channel 293C3 for 
Channel 292A at Cadiz, reallotted Channel 293C3 to Oak Grove, and 
modified the Station WKDZ-FM license to specify operation on Channel 
293C3 at Oak Grove. See 61 FR 31449, published June 20, 1996. This 
document also dismisses an Application for Review filed by Southern 
Broadcasting Corporation directed against that action. The Station 
WKDZ-FM license will specify operation on Channel 293C3 at Cadiz in 
accordance with the grant of a construction permit application (File 
No. BPH-20000427ABE). With this action, the proceeding is terminated.

DATES: Effective May 30, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Hayne, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 
418-2177.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Memorandum Opinion and Order in MM Docket No. 93-314, adopted May 9, 
2001, and released May 11, 2001. The full text of this decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th 
Street, SW.,

[[Page 29237]]

Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20036.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio Broadcasting.


    Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

    1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.


Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Kentucky, is 
amended by removing Oak Grove, Channel 293C3.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 01-13449 Filed 5-29-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Exhibit 10.18






  Exhibit 10.18




		
	JAMES STAFFORD 	 
	 	 
	 	
James Stafford, Inc. 


	 	
Chartered Accountants 


	 	
Suite 350 – 1111 Melville Street 


	 	
Vancouver, British Columbia 


	 	
Canada V6E 3V6 


	 	
Telephone +1 604 669 0711 


	 	
Facsimile +1 604 669 0754 







Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation of our report dated 24 August 2010, except for Note 11, as to which the date is 15 September 2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Dynamic Gold Corp. as at 30 June 2010 and 2009 and the related consolidated statements of operations and deficit, cash flows and changes in shareholders’ deficiency for the years then ended on Form 10-K dated 15 September 2010.


		
	 	/s/ James Stafford
	Vancouver, Canada	Chartered Accountants
	 	
	15 September 2010
152 So. 918

#### Grace BROOKS v. Aubrey Lee BROOKS.

7 Div. 197.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Jan. 11, 1934.

PER CURIAM,

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2268 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2268

  To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to treat certain 
 menstrual products as misbranded if their labeling does not list each 
    ingredient or component of the product, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 10, 2019

   Ms. Meng introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to treat certain 
 menstrual products as misbranded if their labeling does not list each 
    ingredient or component of the product, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Menstrual Products Right To Know Act 
of 2019''.

SEC. 2. CERTAIN MENSTRUAL PRODUCTS MISBRANDED IF LABELING DOES NOT 
              INCLUDE INGREDIENTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 502 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 352) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
    ``(ee) If it is a menstrual product, such as a menstrual cup, a 
scented, scented deodorized, or unscented menstrual pad or tampon, a 
therapeutic vaginal douche apparatus, or an obstetrical and 
gynecological device described in section 884.5400, 884.5425, 884.5435, 
884.5460, 884.5470, or 884.5900 of title 21, Code of Federal 
Regulations (or any successor regulation), unless its label or labeling 
lists the name of each ingredient or component of the product in order 
of the most predominant ingredient or component to the least 
predominant ingredient or component.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to products introduced or delivered for introduction into 
interstate commerce on or after the date that is one year after the 
date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
154 So. 916

#### F. A. CHACE et al. v. C. V. PATTERSON.

3 Div. 61.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 8, 1934.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o
. 0 9

- 6 0 9 1 2 S u m m a r y C a l e n d a r

N O E S A L A Z A R

- R O D R I G U E Z , P e t i t i o n e r

v
. E R I C H

. H O L D E R , J R

. , U

. S

. A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t

P e t i t i o n f

o r R e v i e w o f a n O r d e r o f t h e B o a r d o f I m m i g r a t i o n A p p e a l s B I A N o
. A 0 3 4 6 5 6 0 5 5

B e f o r e R E A V L E Y , D E N N I S , a n d C L E M E N T , C i r c u i t J u d g e s
. P E R C U R I A M : *
M e x i c a n c i t i z e n N o e S a l a z a r - R o d r i g u e z p e t i t i o n s f o r r e v i e w o f t h e d e c i s i o n

o f t h e B o a r d o f

I m m i g r a t i o n A p p e a l s ( B I A ) d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t h e i s i n e l i g i b l e f o r

c a n c e l l a t i o n o f r e m o v a l p u r s u a n t t o 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 2 9 b ( a ) b e c a u s e h i s 1 9 9 6 T e x a s d e f e r r e d a d j u d i c a t i o n c o n v i c t i o n o f p o s s e s s i o n o f m a r i j u a n a c o n s t i t u t e d a n

a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n y d u e t o t w o p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s o f p o s s e s s i o n o f c o n t r o l l e d

s u b s t a n c e s
. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Octob er 22 , 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 09-60912 Document: 00511271230 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/22/2010N o
. 0 9

- 6 0 9 1 2

S a l a z a r - R o d r i g u e z ’ s 1 9 9 6 d e f e r r e d a d j u d i c a t i o n w a s n o t t r e a t e d a s a

r e c i d i v i s t o f

f e n s e i n s t a t e c o u r t

. I t t h e r e f o r e d o e s n o t c o n s t i t u t e a n a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n y f o r p u r p o s e s o f f e d e r a l i m m i g r a t i o n l a w
. T h e 1 9 9 6 c o n v i c t i o n d o e s n o t

r e n d e r h i m i n e l i g i b l e t o b e c o n s i d e r e d f o r c a n c e l l a t i o n o f r e m o v a l

. S e e C a r a c h u r i

- R o s e n d o v
. H o l d e r , 1 3 0 S

. C t

. 2 5 7 7 , 2 5 8 0 , 2 5 8 9 ( 2 0 1 0 )

. S a l a z a r R o d r i g u e z ’ s p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w i s G R A N T E D

. T h e o r d e r o f t h e B I A i s V A C A T E D

a n d t h e c a s e i s R E M A N D E D t o a l l o w S a l a z a r - R o d r i g u e z t o p u r s u e c a n c e l l a t i o n

o f r e m o v a l i n l i g h t o f t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ’ s r u l i n g i n C a r a c h u r i

- R o s e n d o
.

2 Case: 09-60912 Document: 00511271230 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/22/2010
#### Samuel T. GODBOLT, Claimant-Appellant, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2006-7147.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 21, 2006.

Samuel T. Godbolt, pro se.

Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, MAYER and LINN, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

PER CURIAM.

*ORDER*

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to waive the requirements of Fed. Cir. R. 27(f) and to dismiss Samuel T. Godbolt’s appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ decision in *Godbolt v. Nicholson,*05-3111, 2006 WL 954637 (2006), for lack of jurisdiction. Godbolt has not responded.

On April 22, 2005, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals issued a decision, which, among other things, denied Godbolt’s application for service connection for hepati*937tis. On October 17, 2005, 178 days after the date notice of the Board decision was mailed to Godbolt, he filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Godbolt failed to respond to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ order to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. Applying 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) that states that the notice of appeal must be filed within 120 days, “and in light of [Godbolt’s] failure to respond to the Court’s [show cause] order,” the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims concluded that Godbolt failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that his appeal was timely and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Godbolt appeals.

Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292, this court has limited jurisdiction over appeals from decisions of the Veterans Court. *See Forshey v. Principi,*284 F.3d 1335, 1338 (Fed.Cir.2002) (en banc). Absent a constitutional question, this court “may not review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).

A determination whether an appeal is timely filed or whether the appeal period should be tolled involves the application of the law to the facts of the case. *Leonard v. Gober,*223 F.3d 1374 (Fed.Cir.2000). Thus, this appeal is not within our jurisdiction. *See*38 U.S.C. § 7292(d).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The Secretary’s motion to waive the requirements of Fed. Cir. R. 27(f) is granted.

(2) The Secretary’s motion to dismiss is granted.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
#### In the Matter of Richard Jordan, Petitioner, v Joan O’Dwyer et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter*alia> to prohibit the respondents from further prosecuting the petitioner under Queens County indictment No. 4234/87 on the ground of double jeopardy.

Adjudged that the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

A pretrial suppression hearing was conducted in Supreme Court, Queens County, before Justice O’Dwyer on February 24 and February 29, 1988, which resulted in an order, dated March 9, 1988, granting that branch of the petitioner’s motion which was to suppress identification testimony pertaining to the complainant’s pretrial identification of him. At trial, the prosecutor proceeded to elicit testimony on direct examination of the complainant regarding that pretrial identification procedure. At that juncture, the trial court denied the defense counsel’s motion to dismiss the indictment and granted a mistrial. Shortly thereafter, the People again moved the case to trial. The basis of the instant application is that a retrial would subject the petitioner to double jeopardy.

Unlike the situation in which a criminal trial has resulted in a judgment of acquittal, retrial of an indictment is not automatically barred where the merits of the charges against the defendant have not been finally resolved *(Matter of Plummer v Rothwax,*63 NY2d 243, 249). Where, as here, a mistrial was granted at the request of the petitioner’s trial counsel and there is no evidence of bad faith, or of an attempt by the prosecutor to provoke a mistrial motion, retrial is not barred by the double jeopardy protections *(People v Ferguson,*67 NY2d 383, 388; *People v Presley,*136 AD2d 949; *Matter of Owen v Harrigan,*131 AD2d 20, 23). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Thompson and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                           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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the three-month
period ending February 29, 2008 of River Exploration, Inc., a Nevada corporation
(the "Company"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), I, Andrew Aird, Chairman, President and
Chief Financial Officer 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 Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
          13(a) or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
          and

     2.   The information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
          all material respects, the financial condition and results of
          operation of the Company.


 /s/ ANDREW AIRD
 _____________________________________________
 Andrew Aird
 President, Secretary Treasurer,
 Principal Executive Officer,
 Principal Financial Officer and sole Director


Date: April 9, 2008
EXHIBIT 31.1 Certification of 
Principal Executive Officer CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Diane J. Harrison, President
and Chief Executive Officer of Cheetah Consulting, Inc., a Florida corporation (the "Company"), certify that: 1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form
10-Q of the Company; 2.     Based on my knowledge, this 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 report; 3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4.    
I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have: a)     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under
my supervision, 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 report is being prepared; b)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report
my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c)     Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Companys most recent fiscal quarter (the Companys fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 5.     I have disclosed, based on
my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Companys Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a)     All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal control over financial reporting. Date: August 12, 2008  /s/ Diane J.
  HarrisonDiane J. Harrison
Principal Executive Officer
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 00-30192

Summary Calendar

CONNIE BRASSEAUX,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Louisiana

(98-CV-2018)

October 4, 2000

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Connie Brasseaux (“Brasseaux”) was seriously injured on or

about August 28, 1998, when the wave runner she was riding went

over the Demopolis Dam on the Tombigbee River in Demopolis,

Alabama. Brasseaux filed suit on October 21, 1998, against the
2

United States alleging, among other causes of action, that the

United States, through the Corps of Engineers, was negligent in not

placing and maintaining adequate warning signs to indicate the

location of the Sixth Crest Spillway. The United States filed a

motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, motion for summary

judgment, based on the discretionary function exception to the

Federal Tort Claims Act as applied to the Suits in Admiralty Act.

The district court granted the motion to dismiss and judgment was

entered in favor of the United States. Brasseaux timely appeals.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the reply brief, the

record excerpts, and relevant portions of the record itself. For

the reasons stated by the district court in his ruling on

defendant’s motion to dismiss filed September 15, 1999, we affirm

the decision of the district court to grant the motion to dismiss

of the United States. 

AFFIRMED.
#### David GAVLAK and Hillside Spring Farm, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TOWN OF SOMERS and Somers Zoning Board of Appeals, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-4748-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 23, 2006.

John R. Williams, New Haven, CT, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

James N. Tallbert West Hartford, CT, for Defendants-Appellees.

Present: ROGER J. MINER and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges, and LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, District Judge.1

1

. The Honorable Laura Taylor Swain of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York sitting by designation.

*33SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiffs David Gavlak and Hillside Springs Farm, Inc., appeal from an August 2, 2005 judgment of the District Court dismissing all claims against defendants Town of Somers and Somers Zoning Board of Appeals on the basis of defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. Substantially for the reasons stated in the opinion of the District Court, we conclude that summary judgment for defendants was appropriate for all the claims in the complaint. We have carefully considered all of plaintiffs’ arguments and find them without merit. The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED and the pending motion to supplement the record is hereby DENIED as moot.
Exhibit 32.1  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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Enterprise Acquisition Corp.  (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Daniel C. Staton, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that: (1)    The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2)    The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Daniel C. Staton Daniel C. Staton November 14, 2008                                                                            President and Chief Executive Officer