alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
pstv-ex1025_203.htm



 

Exhibit 10.25

 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO

THE PLUS THERAPEUTICS, INC.

2015 NEW EMPLOYEE INCENTIVE PLAN

 

February 6, 2020

 

This Second Amendment amends the 2015 New Employee Incentive Plan (as amended, the “Plan”) of Plus Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”).  Unless otherwise specifically defined herein, each capitalized term used herein shall have the meaning afforded such term under the Plan.

 

WHEREAS, by unanimous written consent of the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”), effective February 6, 2020, the Board determined it to be in the best interests of the Company to amend the Plan to increase the number of shares of Stock authorized for issuance thereunder by 250,000 shares of Stock: 

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


	
1.
	
Share Limit.  Section 4.1 of the Plan shall be amended by replacing it with the following:




“Maximum Number of Shares Issuable.  Subject to adjustment as provided in Sections 4.2 and 4.3, the maximum aggregate number of shares of Stock that may be issued under the Plan pursuant to Awards shall be equal to 250,030 shares and shall consist of authorized but unissued or reacquired shares of Stock or any combination thereof.”

 


	
 
	
Plus therapeutics, inc.

	
 
	
By:
	
/s/ Marc H. Hedrick

	
 
	
Name:
	
Marc H. Hedrick, M.D.

	
 
	
Title:
	
President and Chief Executive Officer
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

TIMOTHY LOUIS PARKER,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 3:10cv15/MCR/MD

KEN TUCKER,

Respondent.

 /

ORDER

This cause comes on for considerationuponthe magistrate judge's report and

recommendation dated September 1, 2011 (doc. 44). The petitioner has been

furnished a copy of the report and recommendation and has been afforded an

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section

636(b)(1), and I have made a de novo determination of those portions to which an

objection has been made.

Having considered the report and recommendation and all objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the report and recommendation should be

adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 1) is DENIED.

3. The clerk is directed to close this file.

4. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of April, 2012.

s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00015-MCR-MD Document 49 Filed 04/04/12 Page 1 of 1
Este informe de Evaluación de Riesgo para la Salud (HHE por sus siglas en inglés) y cualquier

recomendación hecha dentro de él se refieren únicamente a la instalación evaluada y no debe ser

aplicado en forma universal. Ninguna recomendación debe ser considerada como una afirmación final

de la política de NIOSH ni de la agencia o individuo participante.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FRED A. TEETER.

(Filed 7 April, 1965.)

Appeal by the State from *Latham, S.J.,*14 December 1964 Conflict Criminal Session of MeckleNbüRG.

The defendant was charged in Bill of Indictment No. 42986 that during the year 1963 through 1964 he did unlawfully and wilfully refuse and neglect to discharge one of his official duties as a police officer of the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, said duty being to-wit: “the arrest and apprehension of Carrie Bell Williams, Cornelia Black and Mary McCoy Stinson for larceny that is Carrie Bell Williams, Cornelia Black and Mary McCoy Stinson did unlawfully and wilfully take, steal, and carry away the goods, chattels and personal property of Belle’s Department Store, a corporation, of the value of less than $200.00 all to the knowledge of Fred A. Teeter and to the injury of the public and of the people of the City, of Charlotte, North Carolina, all in violation of his oath and public duty,” *et cetera.*

*163The defendant was charged in Bill of Indictment No. 42988 that he corruptly and wilfully failed and neglected to discharge one of his official duties with respect to the same matters set out in Bill No. 42986.

The defendant moved to quash these bills on the grounds set out in & *v. Hard,*filed this day, *ante*149. The motion was allowed as to each bill, and the State appeals, pursuant to the provisions of G.S. 15-179, and assigns error.

*Attorney General Bruton, Deputy Attorney General Harry W. Mc-Galliard, Asst. Attorney General James F. Bullock for the State, appellant.*

*Charles E. Knox for defendant appellee.*

PER Cueiam.

On authority of *S. v. Hord, ante*149, we hold that a duly appointed policeman of the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, is an officer of said City within the meaning of G.S. 14-230.

There is nothing in these bills of indictment to indicate the time of the alleged larceny from Belk’s Department Store, except that sometime “during the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixty-three through 1964,” the defendant failed to discharge his duty by omitting to arrest the named parties. There is nothing to indicate that any officer of Belk’s Department Store caused process to be issued for the arrest of the named parties, or that any officer of Belk’s Store requested the defendant to arrest these parties. Moreover, there is nothing to indicate that the alleged larceny took place in the presence of the defendant officer.

In our opinion, these bills are insufficient to meet the requirements of a valid bill of indictment as set forth in G.S. 15-153 and *S. v. Greer,*238 N.C. 325, 77 S.E. 2d 917.

The motion to quash, allowed by the court below, will be upheld for the reasons hereinabove stated.

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ROGER RANKIN,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 4:10cv24-SPM/WCS

DAVID HARVEY, SHERIFF,

WAKULLA COUNTY, FLORIDA,

in his official capacity,

Defendant.

____________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal with

prejudice (doc. 29) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. This case is dismissed with prejudice.

2. The clerk shall close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of December, 2010.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 197 (Friday, October 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 58122]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5050]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

Cape Cod National Seashore Hunting Program, Final Environmental 
Impact Statement, Cape Cod National Seashore, Massachusetts

AGENCY: National Park Service, Department of Interior.

ACTION:  Notice of availability of a Record of Decision on the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement for the Cape Cod National Seashore 
Hunting Program, Cape Cod National Seashore.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969, 83 Stat. 852,853, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 
section 4332(2)(c), the National Park Service announces the 
availability of the Record of Decision for the Final Environmental 
Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Cape Cod National Seashore Hunting 
Program, Cape Cod National Seashore, Massachusetts. On September 18, 
2007, the Regional Director, Northeast Region approved the Record of 
Decision for the project. As soon as practicable, and as described in 
the Record of Decision, the National Park Service will begin to 
implement the Preferred Alternative contained in the FEIS issued on 
August 10, 2007. The following course of action will occur under the 
preferred alternative. Cape Cod National Seashore will increase hunting 
opportunities for native upland game bird species; apply adaptive 
management to phase out the pheasant stocking and hunting program; 
simplify and clearly delineate hunting areas and increase the ``no-
hunting'' safety buffers along bike paths; expand hunting-related 
outreach to hunting and non-hunting users; and undertake cooperative 
monitoring and management of game species. This course of action and 
two alternatives were analyzed in the Draft and Final Environmental 
Impact Statements. The full range of foreseeable environmental 
consequences was assessed.
    The Record of Decision includes a statement of the decision made, 
synopses of other alternatives considered, the basis for the decision, 
a description of the environmentally preferable alternative, a finding 
on impairment of park resources and values, and an overview of public 
involvement in the decision-making process.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Superintendent, Cape Cod National 
Seashore, 99 Marconi Site Road, Wellfleet, Massachusetts, 02667. 
Telephone: (508) 349-3785, Fax; (508) 349-9052. E-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of the Record of Decision may be 
obtained from the contact listed above or online at http://parkplanning.nps.gov.

    Dated: September 18, 2007.
Dennis R. Reidenbach,
Regional Director, Northeast Region, National Park Service.
[FR Doc. 07-5050 Filed 10-11-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-52-M
```
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-35 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 1 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-35 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 2 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-35 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 3 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-35 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 4 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-35 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 5 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-35 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 6 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-35 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 7 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-35 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 8 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-35 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 9 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-35 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 10 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-35 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 11 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-35 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 12 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-35 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 13 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-35 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 14 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-35 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 15 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-35 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 16 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-35 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 17 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-35 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 18 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-35 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 19 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-35 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 20 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-35 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 21 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-35 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 22 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-35 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 23 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-35 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 24 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-35 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 25 of 25
Case 1:07-cr-00372-LBS     Document 3      Filed 06/12/2007     Page 1 of 1
#### STATE v. CRAWFORD

No. 117 PC.

Case below: 27 N.C. App. 414.

Petition for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 17 December 1975.
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 39 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 1 of 1
u jDGE BATTS

LITTLER MENDELSON

A Professional Corporation

885 Third Avenue, 16th Floor

New York, NY 10022.4834

Telephone: 212.583.9600

Christian L. Feege, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

BARBARA ROCKMORE,

Plaintiff,

-againstDARRICK E. ANTELL,

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., D.D.S., P.C.,

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., D.D.S., P.C., F.A.C.S.

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., F.A.C.S. and

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., F.A.C.S., P.C.,

Defendants.

07 CV 3592

Civil Action No.

Lli MAY 0 4 Z007

b.;

CASKlEiiS

FED. R. CIV. P. 7.1 STATEMENT

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 of the General Rules of the Southern

District of New York, to enable judges and magistrate judges of the Court to evaluate possible

disqualification or recusal, the undersigned counsel for Defendants DARRICK E. ANTELL,

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., D.D.S., P.C., DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., D.D.S., P.C.,

F.A.C.S. DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., F.A.C.S. and DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., F.A.C.S.,

P.C., each of which is a private (non-governmental) party certifies that the following are

corporate parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates of that party which are publicly held: NONE.

Dated: New York, New York

May 4,2007

Christin QJtt'ia L. Feeg* (CL-1474 ^)

LITTLER MENDELSON

A Professional Corporation

885 Third Avenue, 16th Floor

New York, New York 10022.4834

Telephone: 212.583.9600

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

BARBARA ROCKMORE,

Plaintiff,

-againstDARRICK E. ANTELL,

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., D.D.S., P.C.,

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., D.D.S., P.C., F.A.C.S.

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., F.A.C.S. and

DARRICK E. ANTELL, M.D., F.A.C.S., P.C.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No.

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

BY FEDERAL EXPRESS

I, Christina L. Feege hereby certify that on May 3, 2007, I caused a true and correct

copy of the FED. R. CIV. P. 7.1 STATEMENT to be served via Federal Express upon the

following:

Scott A. Lucas, Esq.

Law Offices of Scott A. Lucas

Attorney for Plaintiff

The Lincoln Building - Suite 1001

60 East 42nd Street

New York, New York 10165

(212) 573-6906

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the Untied States of America that the

forgoing is true and correct.

Executed this 3rd day of May 2007 in New York, New York.

&t/* ^~^^_jf.^.^^ \ - «/: '

Christina L. Feege ((^L-1474)

82420833.1

Case 1:07-cv-03592-DAB Document 2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 15.1  Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-184351) pertaining to the Executive Share Option Plan, Long-Term Umbrella Incentive Plan, Non-Executive Directors Equity Incentive Plan, Executive Officer IPO Stock Option Grants and Non-Executive Director IPO Stock Option Grants of Luxfer Holdings PLC (the Company) and in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-196166)  pertaining to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan and Share Incentive Plan of the Company  of our report dated March 15, 2016, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2015 included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2015.  /s/   PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPManchester,   United KingdomMarch 15,   2016
#### VICK v. VICK

No. 153 PC.

Case below: 38 N.C. App. 629.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 4 January 1979.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Veterans Affairs

The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War has scheduled a meeting for October 22-24, 2007 in the auditorium (Room A036) at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 1601 SW., Archer Road, Gainesville, Florida. The meeting will be held from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. each day. The meeting is open to the public.

The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the administration of benefits under title 38, United States Code, for veterans who are former prisoners of war, and to make recommendations on the needs of such veterans for compensation, health care, and rehabilitation.

The agenda for October 22 will include an introduction of committee members, remarks from dignitaries, review of committee reports, an update of activities since the last meeting, and a period for FPOW veterans and/or the public to address the Committee. On October 23, the Committee will hear a presentation from the Robert E. Mitchell Center for Prisoner of War Studies. The day will conclude with new business and general discussion. On October 24, the Committee's medical and administrative work groups will meet to discuss their activities and then will report back to the Committee in the afternoon. Additionally, the Committee will review comments discussed throughout the meeting to compile a report to be sent to the Secretary.

Members of the public may submit written statements for review by the Committee in advance of the meeting to Mr. Bradley G. Mayes, Director, Compensation and Pension Service, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420. Submitted materials must be received by October 10, 2007.

Dated: September 26, 2007.

By Direction of the Secretary

E. Philip Riggin,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 07-4849 Filed 10-1-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
ex_10-6.htm


    
      

      

    

    Exhibit 10.6

     

     

    
      August
10, 2009

      


      


      Octus,
Inc.

      803
Second Street, Suite 303

      Davis, CA
95616

      Attention:
Board of Directors

      


      


      Dear
Ladies/Gentlemen:

      


      This
letter will memorialize and confirm the agreement of Octus, Inc. (the “Company”)
and the undersigned (“Officer”)
relating to the employment agreement dated February 24, 2009, between the
Company and Officer (the “Employment
Agreement”).  The Employment Agreement provides that Officer
will receive compensation at a base salary rate set forth in the Employment
Agreement.  In consideration of the Company’s current state of
operations and cash position, the Company and Officer have agreed that some or
all (with the amount determined by the board of directors of the Company, with
Officer not participating in such decision) of the base compensation amounts
payable to Officer pursuant to the Employment Agreement will be deferred [until
such time as the Company, in the good faith judgment of the board of directors
(with Officer not participating in such decision), has sufficient cash resources
(in light of its other obligations and commitments) to pay the deferred
amounts.  In all events, however, any deferred amounts with respect to
the 2009 year will be paid no later than March 15, 2010.

      


      Very
truly yours,

      


      OCTUS,
INC.

      
        
          
            
              
                
                  	 	 	 	 	 
	
                          By:
      /s/ George Ecker

                        	 	 	
                           

                        	 
	
                          George
      Ecker

                          Its:
      Chief Financial Officer

                        	 	 	
                           

                        	 


                

              

            

          

        

        
 

        OFFICER

          	 	 	 	 	 
	
                  /s/
      Christian Soderquist

                	 	 	
                   

                	 
	
                  Christian
      Soderquist
#### STATE v. ELLERBEE

No. 132 PC.

Case below: 51 N.C. App. 249.

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 12 January 1982.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

WILLIAM R. FOWLE,

Plaintifl

v.

COHEN & SLAMOWITZ,LLP

x

07-cv,3555

Defendant.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Sean C. Serpe, a duly admitted attorney in the United States Disfrict Court for

the Southern Dishict of New York, affirm that on July 30, 2007,I served the defendant in this

action coHEN & sLAMorrz,LLP atl99 crossways park Drive, woodbury, New york

11797 by hand delivery.

Dated: August 7,2007

New York, New York

/s/,Sean C. Serpe

Sean C. Serpe, Esq.

Peilton Serpe LLP

I I I Broadway, Floor 9

NewYork,NewYork 10006

Qr2)72s-3600

X

Case 1:07-cv-03555-BSJ-THK Document 2 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 1 of 1
# C_2011041EN.01000101.xml

| 10.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 41/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 41/1

---

Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities

2011/C 41/01

Pursuant to Article 9(1)(a), second indent, of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities (2) are amended as follows:

1

2

On page 354:

On page 354:

| 8528 71 11


  to


  8528 71 19 | Video tuners |
| --- | --- |

8528 71 11

8528 71 11

to

to

8528 71 19

8528 71 19

Video tuners

Video tuners

The existing text is replaced by the following:

‘These subheadings include apparatus incorporating a video tuner which converts high-frequency television signals into signals usable by video recording or reproducing apparatus or monitors.

These apparatus incorporate selector circuits, which permit tuning to a special channel or carrier frequency, and demodulation circuits. The apparatus may also be equipped with a decoding device (colour) or separator circuitry for synchronisation. They are generally designed to operate with an individual aerial or a shared aerial (high-frequency cable distribution).

The output signal can be used as an input signal for monitors or for recording or reproducing apparatus. It consists of the original camera signal (i.e., not modulated for transmission purposes).

Analogue video tuners within the meaning of these subheadings may be in the form of modules comprising, at least, the radio frequency circuits (RF block), intermediate frequency circuits (IF block) and demodulation circuits (DEM block) where the output is a separate audio and composite video baseband signal (CVBS).

Digital video tuners within the meaning of these subheadings may be in the form of modules comprising, at least, the RF block, IF block, DEM block and an MPEG decoder for digital television where the output is a separate audio and digital video signal.

Modules incorporating both an analogue and a digital video tuner component fall under these subheadings when one of the components is to be classified as a complete or finished video tuner by application of General Interpretative Rule 2(a) of the Combined Nomenclature.

A module not fulfilling the above conditions is to be classified as a part under heading 8529.’

---

(1)  OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ C 133, 30.5.2008, p. 1.

2

---