alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE v. WARREN PIKE, FLOYD PIKE and LOYD PIKE.

(Filed 20 September, 1933.)

Criminal Law L b—

The clerk is without authority to allow defendant’s application for appeal *in -forma, pauperis*in a criminal case where the statutory affidavit fails to aver that the application is made in good faith, or defendant’s second application, intended to correct the deficiency in the first, is made more than five months after the adjournment of the term.

Appeal by defendants from *Alley, J.,*at February Term, 1933, of BuNcombe.

Criminal prosecution tried on indictment charging the defendants with conspiracy to rob.

The case was tried at the February Term, 1933, Buncombe Superior Court, which resulted in conviction and judgment of twelve months on the roads against each of the defendants. Notice of appeal given in open court. Time allowed for preparing statement of case on appeal. Appeal bond fixed at $100.00.

Thereafter, on 7 March, 1933, the clerk of the Superior Court, on certificate of counsel and affidavit, which failed to contain averment that the “application is in good faith,” entered an order purporting to allow the defendants to appeal *in forma pauperis.*

More than five months later, 18 August, 1933, the defendants undertook to cure the defect in their affidavit of insolvency by filing new application for permission to appeal without giving security for costs. This application was likewise granted.

*177
      *Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorneys-General Seawell and Bruton for the State.*

*George F. Meadows for defendants.*

Stacy, C. J.

Both orders of the clerk, purporting to allow tlie defendants to appeal *in forma pauperis,*were improvidently entered: The first for want of sufficient affidavit to support it *(S. v. Martin,*172 N. C., 977, 90 S. E., 502) ; the second for want of authority to allow it at the time. *Powell v. Moore,*204 N. C., 654; *S. v. Stafford,*203 N. C., 601, 166 S. E., 734.

The Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. *Powell v. Moore, supra.*

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 46 (Thursday, March 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 12942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5733]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP95-221-000]


Southern Natural Gas Co.; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

March 3, 1995.
    Take notice that on February 23, 1995, Southern Natural Gas Company 
(Southern), P.O. Box 2563, Birmingham, Alabama 35202-2563, filed in 
Docket No. CP95-221-000 a request pursuant to Sec. 157.205 of the 
Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) for 
authorization to construct and operate a delivery point, including 
measurement and appurtenant facilities for service to South Carolina 
Pipeline Corporation (SCPC), in Jasper County, South Carolina, under 
Southern's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-406-000 
pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set 
forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and open to 
public inspection.
    Southern states that SCPC, in turn, would provide natural gas 
service to South Carolina Electric and Gas Company for service to a new 
residential retirement community known as Sun City Hilton Head. The 
estimated cost of construction, it is said, is approximately $178,400 
and the Maximum Daily Delivery Quantity would be 1,032 Mcf per day.
    Southern states further that the installation of the proposed 
facilities would have no adverse effect on its ability to provide its 
firm deliveries.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Sec. 157.205 of the 
Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the 
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, the 
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day 
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and 
not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-5733 Filed 3-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-10516

Siemens Industry, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

“Made in China 2025” or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
Exhibit 10.35





AMENDMENT TO

BRIGHAM
EXPLORATION COMPANY

1997 DIRECTOR STOCK OPTION PLAN


This Amendment to
Brigham Exploration Company 1997 Director Stock Option Plan (the
“Amendment”) is made effective upon approval by the Stockholders of
Brigham Exploration Company (the “Company”) at the 2011 Annual
Meeting of Stockholders to be held June 21, 2011, by the Company for the
purpose of amending the Brigham Exploration Company 1997 Director Stock Option
Plan as amended effective January 1, 2009 (the “Plan”).


RECITALS:


WHEREAS, the Plan
provides a seven-year Option Period; and


WHEREAS, the
Company now desires to provide a ten-year Option Period;


NOW, THEREFORE,
pursuant to the authority reserved in Section 6.02, the Plan is amended as
follows:


AGREEMENT:


1. Section 4.01(d) of the Plan is hereby amended by
restatement in its entirety to read as follows:


(d) Option Period. Each Option shall become exercisable
in five equal annual installments on each of the first five anniversaries of
such Option’s “Grant Date.” The period within which each
Option may be exercised shall expire on the seventh anniversary of such Grant
Date (the “Option Period”), unless terminated sooner pursuant to
Section 4.02(e) hereof. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, for Options
granted after June 21, 2011, the period within which each Option may be
exercised shall expire on the tenth anniversary of such Grant Date (the
“Option Period”), unless terminated sooner pursuant to
Section 4.02(e) hereof.


2. Capitalized
terms used and not otherwise defined herein have the respective meanings given
to them in the Plan.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer has executed this
Amendment as of this 21st day of June, 2011.


BRIGHAM
EXPLORATION COMPANY


By: /s/
Ben M.
Brigham                        

Name:
Ben M. Brigham

Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 13.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Aptose Biosciences Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, William G. Rice, Ph.D., Chairman, 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, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”); and                                                                                                        
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of the end of the period covered by the Report and the results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.



Date: March 29, 2016



/s/ William G. Rice

William G. Rice, Ph.D.

Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer



This certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18
of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of Section 18 of the Exchange Act. Such certification shall not be deemed
to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the
extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4049 

To require the Federal Trade Commission to investigate and report on 

practices in the oil and gas industry. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 7, 2022 

Ms. HASSAN (for herself, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. KELLY, and Mr. BLUMENTHAL) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To require the Federal Trade Commission to investigate and 

report on practices in the oil and gas industry. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Oversight to Lower 

5 Oil Prices Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act: 

8 (1) APPROPRIATE COMMITTEES OF CON9 GRESS.—The term ‘‘appropriate committees of Con10 gress’’ means Committee on Energy and Commerce 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4049 IS

1 of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 

2 the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, Com3 mittee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Sen4 ate, the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, 

5 and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

6 Transportation of the Senate. 

7 (2) COMMISSION.—The term ‘‘Commission’’ 

8 means the Federal Trade Commission. 

9 SEC. 3. INVESTIGATION INTO AND REPORTING ON MARKET 

10 MANIPULATION IN THE OIL AND GAS INDUS11 TRY. 

12 (a) INVESTIGATION.—Not later than 45 days after 

13 the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall 

14 initiate an investigation under sections 811 and 812 of 

15 the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 

16 U.S.C. 17301, 17302) looking for evidence of market ma17 nipulation or reporting of false information in the oil, gas, 

18 petroleum, and petroleum product industries. 

19 (b) REPORTING.— 

20 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days 

21 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commis22 sion shall submit a report to the appropriate com23 mittees of Congress concerning any— 

24 (A) investigations undertaken under sec25 tion 811 or 812 of the Energy Independence 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4049 IS

1 and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17301, 

2 17302); 

3 (B) enforcement actions initiated under 

4 section 813 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 17303); and 

5 (C) penalties levied under section 814 of 

6 such Act (42 U.S.C. 17304). 

7 (2) FORM OF REPORT.—The report required 

8 under paragraph (1) shall be submitted in an un9 classified form but may include a classified annex. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
---

Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002




I, John
E. Bourgoin, certify, that to my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of MIPS Technologies, Inc. for the three months ended March
31, 2008 (the “Form 10-Q”), to which
this certificate is an exhibit fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and that information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MIPS
Technologies, Inc. for the three month period covered by the
Form 10-Q.




Date:
      May 9, 2008
            By:
            /s/ JOHN E.
      BOURGOIN
              John E.
      Bourgoin
              President and Chief Executive
      Officer,
              MIPS Technologies,
      Inc.


































A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided by MIPS Technologies and will be retained by
it and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
EX-10.5






[LETTERHEAD OF RODMAN & RENSHAW, LLC]




June 23, 2011



STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL



Federico Pignatelli


Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


BIOLASE Technology, Inc.


4 Cromwell


Irvine, CA 92618



Dear Mr. Pignatelli:



Reference is made to that certain letter agreement (“Letter Agreement”), dated June
22, 2011, by and between BIOLASE Technology (the “Company”) and Rodman & Renshaw, LLC
(“Rodman”) pursuant to which Rodman shall serve as the exclusive lead placement agent (the
“Services”) for the Company, on a reasonable best efforts basis, in connection with the
proposed offer and placement (the “Offering”) by the Company of securities of the Company (the
“Securities”). The Company and Rodman hereby agree to amend the Letter Agreement by deleting
Section A.2 in its entirety and any and all references to Rodman Warrants in the Letter Agreement
shall be disregarded.



The Company represents that it is free to enter into this Agreement and the transactions
contemplated hereby. This Agreement shall not be modified or amended except in writing signed by
Rodman and the Company. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Rodman
and the Company and their respective assigns, successors, and legal representatives. This
Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of Rodman and the Company, and supersedes any prior
agreements, with respect to the subject matter hereof. If any provision of this Agreement is
determined to be invalid or unenforceable in any respect, such determination will not affect such
provision in any other respect, and the remainder of the Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts (including facsimile or .pdf counterparts),
each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the
same instrument.



Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, all other provisions of the Letter Agreement and all
rights and obligations thereunder between Rodman and the Company, shall remain the same as of the
date of execution of the Letter Agreement.



In acknowledgment that the foregoing correctly sets forth the understanding reached by Rodman
and the Company, please sign in the space provided below, whereupon this letter shall constitute a
binding agreement as of the date indicated above.



[signature page follows]





Very truly yours,



RODMAN & RENSHAW, LLC



By /s/ John Borer



John Borer



Head of Investment Banking



Accepted and Agreed:



BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY, INC



By /s/ Federico Pignatelli

Federico Pignatelli

Chief Executive Officer




[Signature page to BLTI Amendment to Letter Agreement]
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2123

Reelcraft Industries:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 37 (Friday, February 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 10351]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4529]



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


COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Tennessee Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of 
the Tennessee Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 1:00 
p.m. and recess at 5:00 p.m., on Wednesday, March 15, 1995, at the Days 
Inn-Vanderbilt, West End Room, 1800 West End Avenue, in Nashville. The 
purpose of the session is to discuss civil rights progress and/or 
problems in the State and review the draft report on racial tensions in 
Tennessee. The meeting will reconvene on Thursday, March 16, at 10:30 
a.m., and adjourn at 5:00 p.m., at Tennessee State University, Williams 
Campus, 330 Tenth Avenue, North, Room 354, Nashville, Tennessee 37203. 
The purpose of the meeting on March 16 is to review a planned project 
on enforcement in Tennessee of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964, and to hold a roundtable discussion with guests on that topic.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Bobby D. Doctor, Director of the 
Southern Regional Office, 404-730-2476 (TDD 404-730-2481). Hearing-
impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services 
of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at 
least five (5) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, February 10, 1995.
Carol-Lee Hurley,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 95-4529 Filed 2-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
1 

### NUMBER 13 - 20 - 00010 - CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

CANDICE RENALLE CHAP A , Appellant ,
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.

On appeal from the 36th District Court of San Patricio County , Texas.



## O R D E R
B efore Justices Benavides , Hinojosa, and Tijerina

Order Per Curia m
Appellant, Candice Renalle Chapa, has filed a notice of appeal with this Court from h er conviction in trial court cause number S

- 17

- 3438

- CR

. The trial court’s certification of the defendant’s right to appeal shows that the defendant does not have the right to appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2). The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that a defendant has a right of appeal is not made a part of the reco rd. Id. R. 25.2(d); see id.2

R. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. The purpose of the certification requirement is to efficiently sort appealable cases from non

- appealable cases so that appealable cases can “move through the system unhindered while eliminating, at an earl y stage, the time and expense associated with non

- appealable cases.” Greenwell v. Ct. of Apps. for the Thirteenth Jud. Dist. , 159 S.W.3d 645, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see Hargesheimer v. State , 182 S.W.3d 906, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Within thirty days of date of this notice, appellant’s lead appellate counsel, Larry Chris Iles , is hereby ORDERED to: 1) review the record; 2) determine whether appellant has a right to appeal; and 3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings as to
whether a ppellant has a right to appeal and/or advise this Court as to the existence of any amended certification. If appellant’s counsel determines that appellant has a right to appeal, counsel is further ORDERED to file a motion with this Court within thirty day s of this notice, identifying and explaining substantive reasons why appellant has a right to appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 44.3, 44.4; Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 614

– 15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also, e.g., Carroll v. State , 119 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex

. App.

— San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (certification form provided in appendix to appellate rules may be modified to reflect that defendant has right of appeal under circumstances not addressed by the form). The motion must include an analysis of the applicab le case law, and any factual allegations therein must be true and supported by the record. See
Dears , 154 S.W.3d at 614

– 15; c f. Woods v. State, 108 S.W.3d 314, 316 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (construing former appellate rule 25.2(b)(3) and holding that recita tions in the notice of appeal must be true and supported by the record). Copies of record documents necessary to evaluate the alleged error in the certification affecting3

appellant’s right to appeal shall be attached to the motion. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10 .1,
10.2. PER CURIAM Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2( b). Delivered and filed the 14th d ay of February, 2020.