alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.3



 Exhibit 10.3 

AMENDMENT 
 TO 

DANCE BIOPHARM INC. 

2009 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 

Dated: December 10, 2013 

This Agreement amends the Dance Biopharm Inc. (formerly known as Dance Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) 2009 Equity Incentive Plan (the
“Plan”). All capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Plan. 
 R E C I T A L
S 
 WHEREAS, Section 2(b) of the Plan grants to the Board of Directors (“Board”) of Dance
Biopharm Inc. (the “Company”) the right to amend the Plan from time to time, subject to stockholder approval of certain amendments; and 

WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend the Plan in the manner hereinafter provided, subject to approval by the Company’s stockholders. 

NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 

1. Amendment. 

1.1 Section 3(a) of the Plan is amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 

“(a) Share Reserve. Subject to Section 9(a) relating to Capitalization Adjustments, the aggregate maximum number of
shares of Common Stock of the Company that may be issued pursuant to Stock Awards under the Plan shall not exceed then million (10,000,000) shares.” 

1.2 Section 3(c) of the Plan is amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 

“(c) Incentive Stock Option Limit. Subject to Section 9(a) relating to Capitalization Adjustments, the aggregate
maximum number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued pursuant to the exercise of Incentive Stock Options under the Plan shall not exceed ten million (10,000,000) shares.” 

1.3 Section 4(c) of the Plan is amended to remove the following from the end of the paragraph: “, unless the Company determines that
such grant need not comply with the requirements of Rule 701 and will satisfy another exemption under the Securities Act as well as comply with the securities laws of all other relevant jurisdictions”. 

2. No Other Changes. Except as set forth herein, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect without modification 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Company, has executed this
Amendment as of the date first above written as evidence of its adoption by the Company. 
  

					
	DANCE BIOPHARM INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Samantha Miller

		 	Name:	 	Samantha Miller
		 	Title:	 	Chief Business Officer
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 13, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 47127]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18562]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Notice of New Fee Site; Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act

AGENCY: Allegheny National Forest, USDA Forest Service.

ACTION: Notice of New Fee Site.

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

SUMMARY: The Allegheny National Forest is planning to charge from $100-
$150 per night fee for rental of the Farnsworth Cabin. This cabin has 
not been available to the public for recreation use prior to Spring 
2009. This historic cabin was built by the Civilian Conservation Corp 
in the 1940's. Rentals of other cabins on the Allegheny National Forest 
have shown that the public appreciates and enjoys the availability of 
historic rental cabins.

DATES: Farnsworth Cabin will become available for recreation rental 
Spring, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Forest Supervisor, Allegheny National Forest, P.O. Box 847, 
Warren PA 16365.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tonika Goins, Recreation Team Leader 
for Bradford District, 29 Forest Service Drive, Bradford, PA 16701, 
phone (814) 363-6049, or mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#067269686f6d6761696f687546607528606362287375"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7e0a111017151f191117100d3e180d50181b1a500b0d">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act 
(title VIII, Pub. L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to 
publish a six month advance notice in the Federal Register whenever new 
recreation fee areas are established. The new fee will be reviewed by a 
Recreation Resource Advisory Committee prior to a final decision and 
implementation. A market analysis indicates that the $100 to $150/per 
night fee is both reasonable and acceptable for this sort of unique 
recreation experience. People wanting to rent Farnsworth Cabin will 
need to do so through the National Recreation Reservation Service, at 
http://www.reserveusa.com or by calling 1-877-444-6777. The National 
Recreation Reservation Service charges a $9 fee for reservation.

    Dated: August 6, 2008.
Leanne Marten,
Forest Supervisor (Allegheny National Forest).
[FR Doc. E8-18562 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**I, Erik Olsson, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of RSCHoldings Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) [Not Applicable]  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:October 31, 2007       /s/ Erik Olsson         Erik Olsson    President and Chief Executive Officer    (Principal Executive Officer)
N OTICE OF A PPEARANCE OF C OUNSEL FOR A PPELLEE P AGE 1 NO. 03-15-00585-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

CATHY A. OLSEN,

APPELLANT,

v.

LPP MORTGAGE, LTD.,

APPELLEE.

Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Travis County, Texas Trial Court Case No. C-1-CV-15-002860 Hon. Eric Shepperd, Presiding

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

Please take notice that the undersigned and the law firm of Mackie Wolf

Zientz & Mann, P.C., hereby appear as counsel for Appellee LPP MORTGAGE,

LP, and request all notices given or required to be given in this case, and all papers

served or required to be served in this case, including, without limitation, notices

and any orders, applications, complaints, demands, hearings, motions, petitions,

pleadings or requests, and any other documents brought before this Court in this ACCEPTED 03-15-00585-CV 7035412 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 9/22/2015 1:14:40 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERKN OTICE OF A PPEARANCE OF C OUNSEL FOR A PPELLEE P AGE 2

case, whether formal or informal, whether written o r oral, and whether transmitted

or conveyed by mail, telephone, facsimile or otherw ise be served upon the

undersigned attorney at the following address:

Mark D. Cronenwett MACKIE WOLF ZIENTZ & MANN, P.C. 14160 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 900 Dallas, Texas 75254 Telephone: (214) 635-2650 Facsimile: (214) 635-2686 mcronenwett@mwzmlaw.com

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Mark D. Cronenwett MARK D. CRONENWETT Texas Bar No. 00787303 mcronenwett@mwzmlaw.com

MACKIE WOLF ZIENTZ & MANN, PC 14160 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 900 Dallas, Texas 75254 (214) 635-2650 (214) 635-2686 (Fax)

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEEN OTICE OF A PPEARANCE OF C OUNSEL FOR A PPELLEE P AGE 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 22nd day of September, 2015, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via regular U.S. m ail to the pro se Appellant listed below:

Cathy Olsen 11405 Madrid Dr. Austin, TX 78759

/s/ Mark D. Cronenwett___________ MARK D. CRONENWETT
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 492

To impose a tax and import controls on bullets expressly designed to penetrate

law enforcement personnel bulletproof vests.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 11, 1995

Mr. STARK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To impose a tax and import controls on bullets expressly

designed to penetrate law enforcement personnel bulletproof vests.

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

3 SECTION 1. AMEND 26 U.S.C. 5821 AND 5844.

4 Amend 26 U.S.C. 5821 and 5844 to insert after the

5 word ‘‘firearm’’ each place it occurs the phrase ‘‘and am6 munition designed to penetrate bulletproof vests’’.

7 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

8 Amend 26 U.S.C. 5845 as follows:

9 ‘‘(n) AMMUNITION DESIGNED TO PENETRATE

10 BULLETPROOF VESTS.—The term ‘ammunition de-
2

HR 492 IH

1 signed to penetrate bulletproof vests’ is ammunition,

2 of any design or material, which the Secretary deter3 mines is expressly manufac-turered or advertised to

4 penetrate normal quality bulletproof vests worn by

5 law enforcement personnel.’’.

6 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

7 The tax imposed by this Act is effective Janaury 11,

8 1995.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 454 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 454

 To direct the Secretary of Transportation to complete construction of 
      the Hubbard Expressway in the vicinity of Youngstown, Ohio.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 1995

Mr. Traficant introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of Transportation to complete construction of 
      the Hubbard Expressway in the vicinity of Youngstown, Ohio.

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

SECTION 1. HUBBARD EXPRESSWAY.

    (a) Project Description.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
carry out a highway project in the vicinity of Youngstown, Ohio, to 
complete construction of the Hubbard Expressway.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated, out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass 
Transit Account), to carry out subsection (a) $45,000,000 for fiscal 
year 1996.
    (c) Applicability of Title 23.--Funds authorized by this section 
shall be available for obligation in the same manner as if such funds 
were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code; 
except that the Federal share of the cost of the project under this 
section shall be 80 percent and such funds shall remain available until 
expended. Such funds shall not be subject to any obligation limitation.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED DRILL & TOOL CORPORATION, formerly Whitman & Barnes, Inc., Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. ALLIED PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Appellee and Cross-Appellant.

Nos. 7980, 7981.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 15, 1938.

Whittemore, Hulbert & Belknap, of Detroit, Mich., for appellant.

Barnes, Kisselle, Laughlin & Raisch, of Detroit, Mich., for appellee.

Before HICKS, SIMONS, and ALLEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal and cross appeal is, upon the stipulation of the parties by their respective counsel, hereby docketed and the appeal and cross appeal', 21 F.Supp. 186, dismissed pursuant to said stipulation without costs to either party.
#### Nancy J. Turney, Admrx of the estate of J. Turney, deceased, Pltff in Error, *v.*A. B. Gates, Deft in Error.

ERROR TO JO DAVIESS.

It is erroneous, in reviving a judgment against an administrator, to award an execution against the goods and chattels, lands and tenements of the intestate.

In such a case, where execution was not issued on the judgment against the intestate within a year and a day, the lien on the lands of the intesiate was lost.

The proper order would he to revive ttie judgment against the administrator, to he paid in the due course of administration.

In the distribution of the assets of deceased persons, under our statute, judgment creditors without a hen, and simple contract creditors, stand upon the same footing.

*144This was a proceeding by *Scire Facias,*in the Jo Daviess Circuit Court, to revive a judgment theretofore rendered in favor of the defendant in error, at the March term, 1842, of said Court, against John Turney, who afterwards deceased. The *Sci. Fa.*issued against the present plaintiff in error, as administratrix of John Turney. The cause was heard before Thomas C. Browne, Justice, at the October term, 1844, a default was taken, and a judgment was rendered against the plaintiff in error, reviving the former judgment, and ordering that execution issue “against the goods and chattels, lands and tenements, rights, credits, and effects of the said John Turney, in the hands of the said administratrix to be administered, with costs of suit,” &c.

The administratrix brings the cause to this Court, assigning for error, the rendition of judgment on the *Sci. Fa.*against the lands and tenements of the intestate, and in awarding execution, &c. It does not appear that any execution had issued upon the judgment against the intestate within a year and a day.

The writ of error herein, was issued in November, 1847.

Van H, Higgins, submitted this cause to the Court, *ex parte,*on the errors joined.

Treat, C. J.

Gates recovered a judgment against Turney, in March, 1842. No execution was issued thereon within a year. Turney died in 1844; and, in 1846, Gates sued out a *scire facias*to revive the judgment against his administratrix. An order was entered in that proceeding, that the judgment stand revived against the administratrix, and that the plaintiff have execution against the goods and chattels, lands and tenements of the intestate. The order was erroneous. The plaintiff was not entitled to execution on the judgment. He lost his lien on the lands of the intestate, by failing to sue out an execution within the year. The proper order would have been, that the judgment be revived against the administratrix, to be paid by her in the due course of administration. Welch *v.*Wallace, 3 Gilman, 490. In the distribution of the assets of deceased persons, under our statute, judgment creditors without a lien and simple contract creditors are put on the same footing. Paschall *v.*Hailman, 4 Gil., 285.

The judgment of the Circuit Court will be reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

*Judgment reversed.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

THOMAS BROWN

, §

§

Defendant Below, § No. 303 , 2017

Appellant, §

§ Court Below: Superior Court

v. § of the State of Delaware

§

STATE OF DELAWARE, § C r. ID

. 1111021773A & B

§

Plaintiff Below, §

Appellee. §

Submitted: February 14 , 2018

Decided: February 15 , 2018

Before STRINE , Chief Justice; VA UGHN and TRAYNOR

, Justices

.

O R D E R

This 15 th d ay of February 2018 , it appears to the Court that the judgment of

the Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned

in its opinion d ated June 29 , 2017

. 1

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice

1 State v. Brown

, C r. ID

. 1 1 11021773A & B (Del. Super. June 29 , 2017).
(173 La. 387)

#### CASTELL LAND & HARBOR CO., Inc., et al., v. BUSHONG et al.

No. 31033.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 2, 1931.

Frymire & Ramos, of New Orleans, for appellants.

John D. Miller, of New Orleans, for appel-lees.

BRUNOT, J.

The appeal in this case is from a judgment maintaining exceptions of no right or cause of action and. dismissing the plaintiff’s suit.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is based upon two grounds, viz.: That pending the appeal the plaintiffs were adjudged bankrupts, and therefore they have no standing in court as appellants or otherwise; and that the record is not sufficiently complete to enable this court to adjudge the case on its merits.

Appellants contend that their status ¿an only be determined by an inquiry into the *72merits of the ease, and that the record has been completed by the filing of a supplemental transcript.

The record shows that the plaintiffs’ trustee in bankruptcy Joined the plaintiffs in the appeal, and made himself a coappellant from the judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit.

Upon the authorities cited in support of the first ground of the motion to dismiss, it seems certain that the appeal cannot be dismissed as to plaintiffs’ trustee, and we are extremely doubtful as to whether the present status of plaintiffs can be determined, with satisfactory certainty,' without some inquiry into the merits.

It appears that a part of the record consisted of the record and judgment in another suit. This record and judgment was inadvertently omitted by the clerk who prepared the original transcript in the case. When the clerk’s attention was called to the matter, the omitted record and judgment were promptly transcribed and filed in this court, and, considering the clerk’s certificate appended to the supplement to the original transcript, we must assume that appellants are not chargeable with laches in the preparation of the original transcript.

Eor these reasons the motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled.
EXHIBIT 32.1.

 

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

 

I, Juhani Taskinen, Chief Executive Officer, and Trupti Mehta, Principal Accounting Officer, of Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. (the "Registrant") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period March 31, 2008 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):

 

 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

 

 

| Dated:  May 13, 2008 | By:  /s/ Juhani Taskinen |
|----------------------|--------------------------|

|   | Juhani Taskinen |
|--------|-----------------|

|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|

 

 

|   | By:  /s/  Trupti Mehta |
|--------|------------------------|

|   | Trupti Mehta, Principal Accounting Officer |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|

 

 

* A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 46920]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18581]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-60,887]


Clayton Marcus Co., a Division of Rowe Fine Furniture, Inc. 
(``Rowe''), Plant 1 Bethlehem, Hickory, NC; Amended Certification 
Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and 
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 
amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification Regarding 
Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative 
Trade Adjustment Assistance on March 21, 2007, applicable to workers of 
Clayton Marcus Co., Plant 1 Bethlehem, Hickory, North Carolina. The 
notice was published in the Federal Register on April 6, 2007 (72 FR 
17184).
    At the request of a company official, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in employment related to the production of upholstered furniture.
    New information shows that in October 2007, Rowe Fine Furniture, 
Inc. (``Rowe'') purchased Clayton Marcus Co., Plant 1 Bethlehem and 
that some of the workers' wages at the subject firm are being reported 
under the Unemployment Insurance (UI) tax accounts for Rowe Fine 
Furniture, Inc. (``Rowe'').
    Accordingly, the Department is amending this certification to 
properly reflect this matter.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Clayton Marcus Co., Plant 1 Bethlehem, a division of Rowe 
Fine Furniture, Inc. (``Rowe'') who were adversely affected by 
increased imports of upholstered furniture.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-60,887 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    ``All workers of Clayton Marcus Co., a division of Rowe Fine 
Furniture, Inc. (``Rowe''), Plant 1 Bethlehem, Hickory, North 
Carolina, who became totally or partially separated from employment 
on or after April 22, 2006, through March 21, 2009, are eligible to 
apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act 
of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade 
adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.''

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 5th day of August 2008.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-18581 Filed 8-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P