alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Plant Science Research: Raleigh, NC
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Raleigh, North Carolina Plant Science Research





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications

Research Programs and Projects at this LocationARS research is organized into National Programs. Within each National Program are research projects. Listed below are  the National Programs and research projects currently conducted at this location.
Clicking on a National Program (NP) will take you  to the main ARS site for more information on the program. Clicking on a research  project title will take you to more information on the project.  Current View: All Projects   Show All Projects ||
         Appropriated Projects Only


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
Exhibit 10.2


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT


 


 


This Amendment (this “Amendment”)
dated as of December 15, 2022 (the “Effective Date”) amends the Employment Agreement, dated March 22, 2022 (the “Agreement”)
by and between Theriva Biologics, Inc. f/k/a Synthetic Biologics, Inc. (the “Corporation”) and Francis Tufaro (“Executive”).
Capitalized terms used herein without definition shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.  


 


WHEREAS, the Corporation
desires to amend the Agreement to increase the base salary by five percent (5%) for merit pay.


 


NOW THEREFORE, for
the mutual promises contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,
the parties hereto agree to amend the Agreement as follows:


 


1. Amendment.


 


Effective as of the Effective
Date, Section 4 is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


 


“4. BASE
SALARY. The Company agrees to pay the Executive a base salary (the “Base Salary”) at an annual rate
of $393,750, payable semi-monthly in accordance with the regular payroll practices of the Company. The Executive’s Base Salary shall
be subject to review and adjustment from time to time by the Board (or a committee thereof) in its sole discretion, but may not be decreased.
The base salary as determined herein from time to time shall constitute “Base Salary” for purposes of this Agreement.”





 


2. Severability.
The provisions of this Amendment are severable and if any part or it is found to be unenforceable the other paragraphs shall remain fully
valid and enforceable.


 


3. No Other Amendments;
Confirmation. All other terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. The Agreement, as amended by this Amendment,
constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter thereof.


 


4. Counterparts.
This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but both of which together shall
constitute one and the same instrument.


 


5. Choice of Law.
This Amendment shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Nevada without regard to its conflict
of laws principles.


 


[Signature page follows]


 












     


     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first written above.


 





	 	Corporation:	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	THERIVA
    BIOLOGICS, INC.	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Steven A. Shallcross	 
	 	Name:	Steven A. Shallcross	 
	 	Title:	Chief
    Executive Officer and 	 
	 	 	Chief
    Financial Officer	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	Executive
    :  	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	/s/
    Francis Tufaro 	 
	 	Francis
    Tufaro
#### Sophy H. Mason, Respondent, v. Catherine Dicks, Administratrix, etc., Appellant.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 15, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50673

IN RE: MARSHALL’S VISTA LTD; MARSHALL’S HARBOR LTD, Debtors. KEMP W. GORTHEY, Appellant,

v. VESTIN MORTGAGE, INC., Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin

USDC No. 1:05-CV-648

-------------------- Before GARWOOD, SMITH, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, issued an order of sanctions against Appellant, Kemp Gorthey, who is lead counsel for Point Construction, Inc. Gorthey subsequently appealed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, and the district court affirmed the sanctions order. Gorthey timely appeals to this Court. The facts of this case are fully set forth in the memorandum2

opinions of both the bankruptcy court and district court. A bankruptcy court’s decision to impose sanctions is discretionary, therefore appellate review is for an abuse of discretion. In re First City Bancorporation , 282 F.3d 864, 867 (5th Cir. 2002). The bankruptcy court determined that (1) the claims raised by Gorthey for a constitutional and/or statutory lien had no basis in fact or law; (2) the caselaw cited by Gorthey did not support a reasonable argument for the extension of existing law; (3) Gorthey’s claims were objectively frivolous and raised only for the improper purpose of delay; and (4) Gorthey failed to adequately review the facts and evidence supporting his claims. After considering the oral arguments and reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we are not persuaded that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by issuing sanctions against Gorthey. Accordingly we AFFIRM.

AFFIRMED.
### Proposed Provision: E3.9. Beginning in 2031, apply 2 percent payroll tax rate on earnings over the wage-indexed equivalent of $200,000 in 2017 (about $348,300 in 2031), with the threshold wage-indexed after 2031. Do not provide benefit credit for additional earnings taxed.
#### V. C. V. SHEPHERD v. GULF REFINING COMPANY.

(Filed 21 May, 1930.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Harding, J.,*at November Term, 1929, of Henderson.

Civil action to enforce specific performance of an alleged contract to sell land.

There was a judgment of nonsuit, and the plaintiff appeals.

*Bwbantc, Whitmire <& Weeks for plaintiff.*

*Kitchin & Kitchin, Galloway & Galloway and Shipman & Arledge for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

The nonsuit was entered on the theory that the plaintiff had failed to show a contract in writing, or any memorandum or *825note thereof, signed by the party to be charged therewith, or by some other person by him thereto lawfully authorized, which described the property with sufficient definiteness to admit of identification as required by C. S., 988. In this we find no error.

Affirmed.
II 

Calendar No. 687 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3692 

To direct the Federal Communications Commission to evaluate and consider 

the impact of the telecommunications network equipment supply chain 

on the deployment of universal service, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 17, 2022 

Mr. HICKENLOOPER (for himself, Mr. MORAN, Mr. TESTER, and Mrs. CAPITO) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

DECEMBER 20, 2022 

Reported by Ms. CANTWELL, with amendments 

[Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic] 

A BILL 

To direct the Federal Communications Commission to evaluate and consider the impact of the telecommunications 

network equipment supply chain on the deployment of 

universal service, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3692 RS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Network Equipment 

3 Transparency Act’’ or the ‘‘NET Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. TELECOMMUNICATIONS SUPPLY CHAIN CONSIDER5 ATION. 

6 Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 

7 (47 U.S.C. 1302) Section 13 of the Communications Act 

8 of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 163) is amended— 

9 (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as sub10 section (e); and 

11 (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the fol12 lowing: 

13 ‘‘(d) STATUS OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SUPPLY

14 CHAIN.—As part of the inquiry required by subsection (b) 

15 In each report required by subsection (a), the Commission 

16 shall, to the extent that data is available, determine wheth17 er a lack of network equipment significantly impacted the 

18 deployment of advanced telecommunications capability 

19 during the applicable year reporting period.’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 687 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3692 

A BILL 

To direct the Federal Communications Commission 

other purposes. on the deployment of universal service, and for communications network equipment supply chain to evaluate and consider the impact of the teleDECEMBER 20, 2022 

Reported with amendments 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 1419

ANGELA NAILS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
LIBERTY UNIVERSITY , Defendant

- Appellee,
and LIBERTY UNIVERSITY FINANCIAL AID; LIBERTY UNIVERSITY FINANCIAL AID EMPLOYEES , Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Lynchburg

. Norman K. Moon , Senior District Judge. ( 6:20

- cv - 00063

- NKM )

Submitted : September 8, 2022 Decided: September 1 2, 2022

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Angela Nails, Appellant Pro Se. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1419 Doc: 7 Filed: 09/12/2022 Pg: 1 of 32 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1419 Doc: 7 Filed: 09/12/2022 Pg: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM: Angela Nails appeals the district court’s order s d ismissing her amended complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and denying her motion for
reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the distr ict court. Nails v. Liberty Univ. , No. 6 :2 0

- cv 0 0063

- NKM ( W. D. Va

. Feb. 17, 2022 & Apr. 7 , 202 2 ). W e dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not ai d the decisional process.

AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-1419 Doc: 7 Filed: 09/12/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 32.1
                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

                           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 of Motor Cars Auto Group
Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Barry Tenzer, Principal Executive 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


Date:  May 3, 2004

/s/ Barry Tenzer
---------------------------
Barry Tenzer
Principal Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7666
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIE BAILEY, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-99-55, CR-99-97, CA-01-1037-1) Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: January 7, 2003 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie Bailey, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Patrick Auld, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Willie Bailey, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Bailey has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Bailey , Nos. CR99-55; CR-99-97; CA-01-1037-1 (M.D.N.C. filed Aug. 30, 2002 & entered Sept. 3, 2002). Accordingly, we deny Bailey’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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.

DISMISSED
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-30769

Summary Calendar

IN THE MATTER OF: BENNETT'S MACHINE SHOP, INC.,

Debtor.

___________________________________

W. PATRICK BENNETT,

Appellant,

VERSUS

RUDY O. YOUNG,

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Louisiana

(SA-94-CV-417)

January 8, 1996

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court

entered on July 25, 1995, which affirmed a judgment of the

bankruptcy court entered on February 9, 1995, which was based on

Reasons For Judgment filed by the bankruptcy court also on February2

9, 1995. We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the reply brief,

the record excerpts and relevant portion s of the record itself.

Based on such review, we have determined that the findings of fact

made by the bankruptcy court in its R easons For Judgment are not

clearly erroneous and the conclusions of law reached by the

bankruptcy court in its Judgment and affirmed by the district court

are correct and proper under applicable law. Accordingly, the

Judgment of the district court appealed from herein is AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3321 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3321

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 317 Blattner Drive in Avon, Minnesota, as the ``W.O.C. Kort Miller 
                       Plantenberg Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 7, 2021

  Ms. Klobuchar (for herself and Ms. Smith) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 317 Blattner Drive in Avon, Minnesota, as the ``W.O.C. Kort Miller 
                       Plantenberg Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. W.O.C. KORT MILLER PLANTENBERG POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 317 Blattner Drive in Avon, Minnesota, shall be known and 
designated as the ``W.O.C. Kort Miller Plantenberg Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``W.O.C. 
Kort Miller Plantenberg Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
Jason Schultz

Office of the Chief AcSocial Security Admin

Contribution Structure

National Academy of Social Insurance

2018 Summer Intern Academy

August 1, 2018
Payroll Tax Contribution Rate

the OASDI Programs

 Employees in covered employment, and the

employers, each pay 6.2 percent of the emptaxable earnings (12.4 percent is the combin

 Self-employed individuals who want to make 

contributions pay the full 12.4 percent

 The contribution rate for the OASI program i

generally 10.6 percent, while it is 1.8 percenprogram

– The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 provided a tem

rate reallocation from OASI to DI from 2016 throu
Contribution and Benefit Bas

 This is an annual dollar amount above which e

employment covered under the OASDI prograneither taxable nor creditable for benefit comppurposes. Sometimes called “the cap”

 $128,400 for calendar year 2018. This means

– $7,960.80 is the maximum Social Security tax a per

covered employment will pay in 2018

– The maximum amount of earnings for 2018 that can 

the average indexed monthly earnings (AIME) calcuwhich the primary insurance amount is based) is $1

 This is an average-wage

-indexed amount
Taxable Ratio

 The 1977 amendments to the Social Security Ac

the contribution and benefit base so that the ratitaxable payroll to total covered earnings was ab

percent

 Wage indexed thereafter This ratio has declined over time, and is now ab

percent
Proposals Based on Contribution 

Structure

 Based on the Intermediate Assumptions of the 2

Trustees Report, the actuarial deficit could be elby increasing the combined payroll tax rate by 2percent, to 15.35 percent

 BUT: the OASDI program has large and increas

deficits towards the end of the long-range period

 Proposals to increase tax revenue involve

– Raising payroll tax rates– Raising the contribution and benefit base– Other more sophisticated mechanisms (e.g., taxing pre

employer-sponsored group health insurance)
Contribution and Benefit Bas

Proposals

 Could eliminate the “cap” completely, and ei

– Count the additional earnings towards benefits ... – ... or not!

 Raise the “cap” so that it reaches a certain t

ratio by a certain year

– For example, raise the contribution and benefit ba

covers 90% of all taxable earnings in 2024

– As a reference, a base of $260,000 covers about 

taxable earnings in 2018
Beyond The Cap

 Expand covered earnings to include employer a

employee premiums for employer-sponsored groinsurance

 Expand covered earnings to include contribution

voluntary salary reduction plans (like Cafeteria 1and Flexible Spending Accounts)

– Subject these contributions to the OASDI payroll tax, m

payroll tax treatment like 401(k) contributions

 Apply a 6.2 percent tax on investment income a

in the Affordable care Act, with unindexed threshthe ACA ($200,000 for single filer, $250,000 for filing jointly)
Questions?

 Visit www.ssa.gov/OACT for a wealth of informa

actuarial resources
<PAGE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Exhibit 21.1     List of Subsidiaries of the Registrant



Name                                        Jurisdiction     Names under which it does
                                                             business
--------------------------------          --------------     -------------------------
<S>                                            <C>              <C>
 Nevada Resources, Ltd. (1)                   Nevada, USA     (same)
 Latin American Casinos Del Peru S.A. (1)     Peru            (same)
 Latin American Casinos of Colombia LTDA (1)  Columbia        (same)
 World's Best Rated Cigar Company (2)         Florida         (same)
 NuWay Sports LLC (3)                         California      (same)

</TABLE>
(1)     Sold effective October 1, 2002
(2)     Ceased operations during November 2002
(3)     Formed December 2003


<PAGE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2



                            INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Unify Corporation:

    We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-13203) on Form S-8 of Unify Corporation of our report dated May 17, 1996,
relating to the consolidated balance sheet of Unify Corporation and subsidiaries
as of April 30, 1996, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the years in the
two-year period ended April 30, 1996, and the related financial statement
schedule, which report appears in the April 30, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K
of Unify Corporation.


KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

San Jose, California
July 23, 1997


                                          61