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

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1511 

Honoring the United States-Mexico Border Health Commission on the 10th 

anniversary of the full commission establishment and for a decade of 

significant contributions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 13, 2010 

Mr. GRIJALVA (for himself, Mr. ORTIZ, Mr. FILNER, Mr. CUELLAR, Mr. 

RODRIGUEZ, and Mr. REYES) submitted the following resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the United States-Mexico Border Health Commission on the 10th anniversary of the full commission 

establishment and for a decade of significant contributions. 

Whereas, on October 22, 1994, the United States section of 

the United States-Mexico Border Health Commission was 

established; 

Whereas, on July 24, 2000, the agreement between the 

United States and Mexico established the full United 

States-Mexico Border Health Commission; 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1511 IH 

Whereas the mission of the United States-Mexico Border 

Health Commission is to provide international leadership 

to optimize health and quality of life along the United 

States-Mexico border; 

Whereas the primary goals of the United States-Mexico Border Health Commission are to institutionalize a domestic 

focus on border health that can transcend political 

changes and to create an effective venue for bi-national 

discussions to address the public health issues and problems affecting the United States-Mexico border populations; 

Whereas the United States-Mexico Border Health Commission facilitates identification of public health issues, supports studies and research on border health, and brings 

together effective Federal, State, and local public and 

private resources by forming dynamic partnerships and 

alliances to improve the health of the border populations 

through creative, multi-sectoral approaches; and 

Whereas the United States-Mexico Border Health Commission works towards the Millennium Development Goals, 

particularly to reduce child mortality, improve maternal 

health, combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases, 

and to develop a global partnership for development: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) honors the achievements of the United 

3 States-Mexico Border Health Commission, which 

4 have improved health for the residents of the United 

5 States-Mexico border region; and 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1511 IH 

1 (2) recognizes the 10th anniversary of the 

2 agreement to establish the full United States-Mexico 

3 Border Health Commission. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
##### 



Exhibit 32.3 Certification of Controller
Pursuant To Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002 Solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United
States Code, the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Form 10-Q fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant at the dates and for the periods indicated. No purchaser or seller
of securities shall be entitled to rely on the foregoing statement for any
purpose, and the undersigned expressly disclaim any obligation to update the
foregoing statement except as required by law. FIRST FEDERAL CAPITAL CORP/s/ Kenneth C. Osowski
Kenneth C. Osowski
Vice President and Controller
    
    May 7, 2004
 31
neot-ex47_37.htm



Exhibit 4.7

 

 

WARRANT MODIFICATION AGREEMENT

This Warrant Modification Agreement is entered into as of March 30, 2016, between Hercules Technology III, L.P. (the “Warrantholder”) and Neothetics, Inc. (formerly known as Lithera, Inc., the “Company”). 

Recitals

A.On June 11, 2014, the Company issued to Warrantholder a warrant (the “Warrant”) to purchase shares of its Preferred Stock on such terms as set forth therein.  Any terms not specifically defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Warrant.

B.On November 20, 2014, the Company closed its Initial Public Offering, at which time all shares of the Company’s preferred stock, including the Preferred Stock, were automatically converted into Common Stock.

C.In accordance with the provisions of Section 8(c) of the Warrant, as a result of the Initial Public Offering, the Warrant automatically became exercisable for Common Stock.

D.In connection with an amendment to the Loan Agreement of even date herewith, the Company and the Warrantholder now desire to adjust the Exercise Price of the Warrant.

Now, therefore, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and Warrantholder agree as follows:

 

1.The introductory paragraph of Section 1 is hereby amended and restated as follows:

“For value received, the Company hereby grants to the Warrantholder, and the Warrantholder is entitled, upon the terms and subject to the conditions hereinafter set forth, to subscribe for and purchase from the Company, 46,838 fully paid and non-assessable shares of the Common Stock. The Exercise Price of such shares is subject to adjustment as provided in Section 8.  As used herein, the following terms shall have the following meanings:”

2.The term “Exercise Price” in the Warrant is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:

““Exercise Price” means the lower of the closing price on March 30, 2016 or the volume-weighted average of the closing prices over the fifteen (15) consecutive trading days ending on March 30, 2016.”

3.The definitions of “Next Round” and “Warrant Coverage” are hereby deleted.

4.All references to “Preferred Stock” shall instead refer to “Common Stock.”

 

Except as specifically set forth in this Warrant Modification Agreement, the Warrant remains unmodified and in full force and effect.  

 

***

 



Exhibit 4.7

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by its officers thereunto duly authorized as of the date set forth above.

 

COMPANY:NEOTHETICS, INC.

 

By:   /s/ Susan A. Knudson

Name:  Susan A. Knudson

Title: Chief Financial Officer

 


	
 
	
WARRANTHOLDER:  
	
HERCULES TECHNOLOGY III, L.P.,




a Delaware limited partnership


	
 
	
By:
	
Hercules Technology SBIC Management, LLC,





	
 
	

	
its General Partner





	
 
	
By:
	
Hercules Capital, Inc.,





	
 
	

	
its Manager




 


	
 
	
By:
	
/s/ Jennifer Choe




Name:Jennifer Choe
Title:Assistant General Counsel

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[signature page]
Jason Nathaniel HOLLAND, petitioner, v. Joe M. ALLBAUGH, Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

No. 16-6052.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>
                                                     EXHIBIT 3.1B

                    CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                               OF
       AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION 
                               OF
                    DSP COMMUNICATIONS, INC.



DSP Communications, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under and by 
virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware,

     DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

     FIRST:  That the Board of Directors of DSP Communications, Inc. duly 
adopted resolutions setting forth a proposed amendment of the Amended and 
Restated Certificate of Incorporation of said corporation, declaring said 
amendment to be advisable and directing that said amendment be considered at 
a special meeting of the stockholders of said corporation.  The resolution 
setting forth the proposed amendment is as follows:

          RESOLVED:  That the first paragraph of Article IV of this 
     corporation's Amended and restated Certificate of Incorporation be 
     amended to read in its entirety as follows:

          "This Corporation is authorized to issue two (2) classes of stock 
     to be designated, respectively, Preferred Stock, par value $.001 per
     share ("Preferred"); and Common Stock, par value $.001 per share 
     ("Common").  The total number of shares of Common that this Corporation
     shall have authority to issue is one hundred ten million (110,000,000).  
     The total number of shares of Preferred that this Corporation shall have
     authority to issue is five million (5,000,000).  The Preferred Stock may
     be issued from time to time in one or more series.

          Upon the filing of this amendment to the Certificate of 
     Incorporation with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware (the 
     "Effective Time"), each share of Common of this Corporation issued and 
      outstanding immediately prior to the Effective Time shall be changed and 
      converted into two (2) shares of Common of this Corporation."

     SECOND:  That thereafter, pursuant to resolution of its Board of 
Directors, a special meeting of the stockholders of said corporation was duly 
called and held, upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the General 
Corporation law of the State of Delaware, at which meeting the necessary 
number of shares as required by statute were voted in favor of the amendment.

<PAGE>

     THIRD:  That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the 
provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of 
Delaware.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said DSP Communications, Inc. has caused this 
certificate to be signed by Nathan Hod, its President and Chief Executive 
Officer, this 12th day of November, 1996.

                                   DSP COMMUNICATIONS, INC.


                                   BY:      /s/ Nathan Hod                   
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                          Nathan Hod,
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gary M. Morrow, Appellant.

[873 NYS2d 504]

— Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground, inter alia, of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated January 26, 2004 *(People v Morrow,*3 AD3d 584 [2004]), affirming a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered April 24, 2001.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Rivera, J.P., Fisher, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.
PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES, ex rel. Jon H. OBERG.

No. 15-1045.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
H. Res. 1381 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 9, 2010. 

Whereas the National Museum of American Jewish History 

will illustrate how the freedom of America and its associated choices, challenges, and responsibilities fostered an 

environment in which Jewish Americans have made and 

continue to make extraordinary contributions in all facets 

of American life; 

Whereas the mission of the National Museum of American 

Jewish History, an affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution, is to connect Jews more closely to their heritage and 

to inspire in people of all backgrounds a greater appreciation for the diversity of the American experience and the 

freedoms to which all Americans aspire; 

Whereas the National Museum of American Jewish History, 

an affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution, was founded 

in 1976 by members of historic Congregation Mikveh 

Israel, itself established in 1740 and known as the ‘‘Synagogue of the American Revolution’’; 

Whereas the National Museum of American Jewish History 

has attracted a broad audience to its public programs, 

while exploring American Jewish identity through lectures, panel discussions, authors’ talks, films, children’s 

activities, theater, and music; 
2 

•HRES 1381 EH 

Whereas the National Museum of American Jewish History 

is the repository of the largest collection of Jewish Americana in the world, with more than 25,000 objects; and 

Whereas the National Museum of American Jewish History 

is currently building a 100,000-square-foot, 5-story, 

state-of-the-art museum on Independence Mall, standing 

just steps from the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall, 

to serve as a cornerstone of the American Jewish community and a source of national pride: Now, therefore, be 

it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes— 

(1) the importance of the continuing study and 

preservation of the unique American Jewish experience; 

and 

(2) the National Museum of American Jewish History, an affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution, as the 

only museum in the Nation dedicated exclusively to exploring and preserving the American Jewish experience 

and, as such, as the national museum of American Jewish history. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
# C_2010080EN.01000601.xml

| 27.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 February 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-185/09) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/24/EC - Electronic communications - Retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of electronic communications services - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

2010/C 80/10

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Balta and U. Jonsson, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and A. Engman, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 54)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 180, 01.08.2009.

1

---
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

RAY MERCADO, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D16-5576

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed October 17, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hendry 

County; James E. Sloan, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and 

Julius J. Aulisio, Assistant Public Defender, 

Bartow, for Appellant.

Ray Mercado, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

KHOUZAM, Judge.

This is Ray Mercado's Anders1 appeal of his judgment and sentence for 

lewd or lascivious battery. In both his motion to correct sentencing error filed pursuant 

to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) as well as in his pro se initial brief, 

1Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 
- 2 -

Mercado argues that the court improperly imposed $100 in prosecution/investigative 

costs. We affirm Mercado's judgment and sentence in all respects except we remand 

for the trial court to strike the $100 in prosecution/investigative costs because the plain 

language of section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes (2016), requires that the costs be 

requested and there is no such request on the record before us. See Thomas v. State, 

236 So. 3d 1159, 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). The prosecution/investigative costs may 

not be reimposed on remand. See id. 

Affirmed and remanded with instructions. 

LaROSE, C.J., and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Camille SOLOMON-EATON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-8975.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
#### Paul LEWIS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situation [sic], Plaintiff-Appellant v. AUTO CLUB FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY, doing business as AAA Insurance, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 12-30087

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 24, 2012.

Jason Luke Melancon, Melancon Rimes, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Thomas Mark Richard, Esq., Chad Joseph Landry, Chopin Wagar Richard & Kutcher, L.L.P., Metairie, LA, for Defendanb-Appellee.

Before WIENER, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

AFFIRMED. See Rule 47.6.

*

 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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PETER J. McDANIELS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

BELINDA STEWART, Religious Programs 

Manager; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-35275 

D.C. No. 3:15-cv-05943-BHSDWC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 23, 2017**

Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Washington state prisoner Peter J. McDaniels appeals pro se from the 

district court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional and statutory violations arising from 

allegedly inadequate Halal meals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

OCT 26 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 17-35275 

We review for an abuse of discretion. Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 

746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McDaniels’s third 

motion for mandatory preliminary injunctive relief because McDaniels failed to 

establish that absent such relief he is likely to suffer irreparable harm. See id.

(setting forth standard for issuance of preliminary injunction); Park Vill. Apartment 

Tenants Ass’n v. Mortimer Howard Trust, 636 F.3d 1150, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) 

(stating that mandatory injunctions are not generally granted “unless extreme or 

very serious damage will result” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

To the extent that McDaniels challenges any other orders, we lack 

jurisdiction to consider them in this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (court has 

jurisdiction to review on an interlocutory basis the district court’s denial of 

injunctive relief); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (generally, court has jurisdiction over 

appeals from final decisions of the district court only); Chacon v. Babcock, 640 

F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir. 1981) (absent certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), an 

order is not appealable unless it disposes of all claims as to all parties or judgment 

is entered). 

We reject as without merit McDaniels’s contention that the district court 

abused its discretion by imposing page limits on McDaniels’s filings.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 
 3 17-35275 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

McDaniels’s motion to include new evidence on appeal (Docket Entry No. 

4) is denied.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000850427
<NAME> GEODYNE INSTITUTIONAL/PENSION ENERGY INCOME P-1 LTD PSHP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         444,454
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  200,381
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               644,835
<PP&E>                                       7,814,439
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,201,911
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,257,363
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,257,363
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,257,363
<SALES>                                        597,105
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               729,546
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,096,693
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (367,147)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (367,147)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (367,147)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IV 

House Calendar No. 227 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1568 

[Report No. 111–577] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5893) to amend the Inte

Revenue Code of 1986 to create jobs through increased investment i

infrastructure, to eliminate loopholes which encourage companies to m

operations offshore, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 28, 2010 

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and order

to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5893) to a

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to create jobs