alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN
NO. 03-05-00410- CV

Ce nt r al U nit e d Life Ins ur anc e Co m pany , A ppe lla nt
v. Texas Depart m ent of In surance and Jose Montem ayor, in his capacity

as Com m ission er of Insu rance, A ppellees

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN404034 , HO NORAB LE LORA J. LIVINGSTO N, JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N The pa rties have filed a joint m o t i o n t o dismiss the appe al advising that they have
se ttl e d th e ir dif

fe re nc e s. Th e a

pp e a l is dis mis se d o n th e joi nt m oti on and c os ts a re a sse sse d a g a ins t the par ty incurringthem.

Be a Ann Smith, J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P atterson a nd Pury ear Dismissed on J oint Moti on Filed: January

24, 20062
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 40087 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

RAFAEL GABRIEL LINARES , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:13

- CR

- 1081

- 2

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Rafael Gabriel Linares has moved
for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Linares has filed a response and two supplemental responses . We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected
therein , as well as Linares ’ s response and supplemental responses . We concur

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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 September 25, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-40087 Document: 00512782332 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/25/2014No. 14

- 40087

with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfri volous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 14-40087 Document: 00512782332 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/25/2014
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 19

JOINT RESOLUTION

Providing for the appointment of Walter E. Massey

as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents ofthe Smithsonian Institution.

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 19

JOINT RESOLUTION

Providing for the appointment of Walter E. Massey as a

citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That, in accordance with section 5581 of the Revised Stat-
2

•HJ 19 EH

1 utes of the United States (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on

2 the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in

3 the class other than Members of Congress, occurring by

4 reason of the expiration of the term of Frank A. Shrontz

5 of Washington on May 4, 2000, is filled by the appoint6 ment of Walter E. Massey of Georgia. The appointment

7 is for a term of 6 years and shall take effect on the date

8 of the enactment of this joint resolution.

Passed the House of Representatives February 28,

2001.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### BOLOGNA v. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO.

No. 18531.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

May 9, 1949.

Writ of Certiorari Denied June 30, 1949.

Cicero C. Sessions, New Orleans, for plaintiff and appellant.

Phelps, Dunbar, Marks & Claverie and Ashton Phelps, New Orleans, for defendant and appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Counsel for appellant in application for rehearing vehemently criticizes our opinion, and in two instances makes statements which we think advisable to comment upon.

He says, and he repeats the statement at least three times, that we found that the vessel on which the insured was a seaman was engaged in battle. We made no such statement. What we held was that the Country was at war and that, because of that war, the precautions which were the cause of the disaster were resorted to in an effort to avoid a battle.

Counsel also charges that we refused to apply to the exclusion clause the rule that such a clause must be construed strictly against the insurer and that where there is ambiguity doubt must be resolved in favor of the insured. We recognize now, and we recognized in our opinion, that where a general clause is employed in a policy written by the insurer it should be construed against the insurer wherever there is reasonable ground for doubt. That rule is so well established that we felt that there was no necessity to discuss it at length. All that we intended to say on the subject is that when an attempt is made to include all situations- which will make such a clause operative, there is grave danger that by the inclusion of some and the unintentional omission of others there will be brought into play the rule “inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.”

Conceding as we do that the clause under consideration here should be interpreted against the insurer if there were any doubt as to its meaning, we repeat that we have no doubt on the subject, being firmly of the opinion that the accident resulted at least indirectly, if not directly, from an incident of war.

A rehearing is refused.

Rehearing refused.

'McBRIDE, J., dissents from refusal to grant rehearing.
#### Village of Englewood *v.*Bettis.

(No. 24352

Decided November 29, 1933.)

*Messrs. Allaman, Ftmkhouser $ Murr*and *Mr. Irwin Carl Dels camp,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. W. 8. Bhotehamel,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Bevis and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.

Allen, J., dissents.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William J . Carey

V .

Hillsborough County Departmen t

of Corrections, Medical Department

No . 05-fp-44 2

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERI S

Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

granted, but only for the purpose of waiving the filing fee .

This case has been assigned civil number 05-cv-442-PB .

SO ORDERED .

R . Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judg e

Date : December 19, 200 5

cc : William J. Carey, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00442-PB Document 3 Filed 12/19/2005 Page 1 of 1
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 15

- 00043

- CV

Carlos M. REYES and Molly Reyes,

Appellants

v.

Bill W. BELL Sr. and Bill Bell Jr.,

Appellees

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Jim Wells County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10

- 09

- 49378

- CV

Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. Costs of

the appeal are taxed against appellants.

SIGNED June 24, 2015.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez , Justice
EX-10.2(d)






 Exhibit 10.2(d) 

[***] Certain information in this document has been excluded pursuant to Regulation S-K, Item 601(b)(10). Such
excluded information is not material and would likely cause competitive harm to the registrant if publicly disclosed. 
 AMENDMENT NO. 3

 TO LICENSING AND ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT 

This Amendment No. 3 (“Amendment No. 3”) to LICENSING AND ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT, made and entered into the 6th day of October, 2017 (“Amendment No. 3 Effective Date”) by and between Satsuma Pharmaceuticals, Inc., having its principal place of business at 395 Oyster Point
Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA 94080, USA (“Company”) and Shin Nippon Biomedical Laboratories, Ltd., having its principal place of business at 2438, Miyanoura-cho, Kagoshima-shi, Kagoshima-ken, Japan (“SNBL”). Company and SNBL are collectively the “Parties”. 

 

	A.	 The Parties have entered in to a LICENSING AND ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT, effective as of the 30th day of June, 2016 (“AGREEMENT”), as well as AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO LICENSING AND ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT, effective as of the 13th day
of January, 2017 (“Amendment No. 1”), and AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO LICENSING AND ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT, effective as of the 19th day of April, 2017 (“Amendment
No. 2”), and 


  

	B.	 The Parties agree to amend certain provision of the AGREEMENT; 



 

	 	1.	 Amendment to the AGREEMENT. 



 

	 	    	 The Parties therefore agree to this Amendment No. 3 as set forth herein. 



 

	 	a.	 Exhibit 1.20.2. “Other Product Patents” is hereby amended and replaced in its entirely as
stated as in the Attachment of this Amendment No. 3. 


  

	 	2.	 Miscellaneous. Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meaning given to
them in the AGREEMENT. This Amendment No. 3 will be effective for all purposes as of the Amendment No. 3 Effective Date. This Amendment No. 3 may be executed in two counterparts, including by facsimile or electronically transmitted
copies, each of which will be deemed to be an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument. 


 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Amendment No. 3 to be signed by their respective duly authorized representatives as of the Amendment No. 3 Effective Date. 

 

			
	SATSUMA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.	  	 SHIN NIPPON BIOMEDICAL

LABORATORIES, LTD.

		
	By: /s/ Mic Iwashima                        	  	By: /s/ Shunji Haruta                        
	Printed Name: Mic Iwashima	  	Printed Name: Shunji Haruta
	Title: Vice President, Head of Operations	  	Title: General Manager, TR Company














 Attachment 

Exhibit 1.20.2 

Other Product Patents 

Omitted pursuant to Regulation S-K, Item 601(a)(5)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-5503
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LANCELOT WADDINGTON GIBBS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CR-91-86-C-MU) Submitted: November 27, 1996 Decided: January 9, 1997 Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John H. Culver, III, Cory Hohnbaum, KENNEDY, COVINGTON, LOBDELL & HICKMAN, L.L.P., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T. Calloway, United States Attorney, Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Lancelot Waddington Gibbs appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to various drug offenses. We affirm. Gibbs has the burden of showing a "fair and just reason" for wishing to withdraw his guilty plea and that the district court abused its discretion in denying his request. United States v. Lambey , 974 F.2d 1389, 1393 (4th Cir. 1992) (en banc), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 672 (1994); Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e). Such a fair and just reason "is one that essentially challenges either thefairness of the [Fed. R. Crim. P. 11] proceeding ... or the fulfillment of a promise or condition emanating from the proceeding." Lambey, 974 F.2d at 1394. Gibbs argues that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea based on the fact that following his guilty plea, one of his codefendants stated in a sworn affidavit that Gibbs was unaware of the conduct forming the basis of one of the offenses. Finding no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw that plea, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20A0303. SYLVESTER RICHARDSON v. THE STATE.

A jury found Sylvester Richardson guilty of malice murder and other crimes. 

He wassentenced to two consecutive life sentences plus five years. Richardson filed

a timely motion for new trial, which the trial court denied as to his convictions for

malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.

1 After

he was granted the right to file an out-of-time appeal, Richardson filed the instant

direct appeal.

Under our Constitution, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over

“[a]ll cases in which a sentence of death was imposed or could be imposed.” Ga.

Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (8). Because a penalty of death can be

imposed for the crime of malice murder, jurisdiction is proper in the Supreme Court. 

See OCGA § 16-5-1 (a), (e) (1); Neal v. State, 290 Ga. 563, 572 (722 SE2d 765)

(2012) (Hunstein, C. J., concurring); see also State v. Thornton, 253 Ga. 524, 524 (1)

(322 SE2d 711) (1984) (directing this Court to transfer “all cases in which either a

sentence of death or of life imprisonment has been imposed upon conviction of

murder”). 

1 The trial court vacated Richardson’s conviction for armed robbery and stated

that he would be re-sentenced at a later date.

September 16, 2019
Accordingly, Richardson’s appeal is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Supreme

Court for disposition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

09/16/2019
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

DRE'SHAUN E. BURNS,

Defendant.

8:23CR120

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Continue Deadline 

for Filing Pretrial Motions. (Filing No. 26). The motion is unopposed by the government. For 

good cause shown, the Court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1) Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Continue Deadline for Filing Pretrial Motions, 

(Filing No. 26), is granted.

2) Pretrial motions shall be filed by November 13, 2023.

3) In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the Court finds that the ends of 

justice will be served by granting this motion and outweigh the interests of the 

public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Any additional time arising as a result 

of the granting of this motion, that is, the time between September 12, 2023, and 

November 13, 2023, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time 

under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant this motion would 

deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into 

account the exercise of due diligence, and the novelty and complexity of the case. 

The failure to grant this motion might result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B). Failing to timely object to this order as provided under this 

court’s local rules will be deemed a waiver of any right to later claim the time 

should not have been excluded under the Speedy Trial Act.

Dated this 13th day of September, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge 

8:23-cr-00120-RFR-MDN Doc # 27 Filed: 09/13/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 44
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15-0034V

Filed: May 12, 2015

Unpublished

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

RACHEL FAUCHER, *

*

Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

v. * Influenza or Flu Vaccine; Shoulder

* Injury Related to Vaccine Administration

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (“SIRVA”); Special Processing Unit

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“SPU”)

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Ronald Homer, Esq., Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner.

Claudia Gangi, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Vowell, Chief Special Master:

On January 12, 2015, Rachel Faucher filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2

[the 

“Vaccine Act” or “Program”]. Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury 

related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) which was caused by the influenza vaccine 

she received on September 11, 2013. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the 

Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On May 12, 2015, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she concedes 

that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 4. Specifically, respondent “concludes that petitioner suffered a non-Table injury of 

SIRVA and that the preponderance of the medical evidence indicates that the injury was 

causally related to the flu vaccination she received on September 11, 2013.” Id. at 3-4. 

 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to 

post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 

note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to 

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of 

privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such 

material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2006).
2

Furthermore, respondent agrees that petitioner’s injury lasted for more than six months

and is not due to factors unrelated to the administration of the flu vaccine. Id. at 4. 

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, I find that 

petitioner is entitled to compensation.

s/Denise K. Vowell

Denise K. Vowell

Chief Special Master
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00501-CR

Arthur Delgado Jr.

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 297th District Court

of Tarrant County (1295164D)

February 5, 2015

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-cr-143-01-JD

Donald Wonders

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

54) filed by defendant is granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days. The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3131(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr._

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: July 16, 2007

cc: Mark Sisti, Esq.

Debra Walsh, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:05-cr-00143-JD Document 55 Filed 07/16/07 Page 1 of 1
Order entered May 10, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00378-CV

TODD PRUETT, Appellant

V.

MARK STOLZ, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-07463

ORDER

We DENY appellant’s May 1, 2013 motion to add newly discovered evidence and 

illegality to writ of mandamus.

/s/ DAVID LEWIS 

JUSTICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-21-01-PB

Lesly J. Sanders

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the April 4, 2006 trial

in the above case. Defendant cites the need for additional time

to engage in plea negotiations or prepare for trial. The

government does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time

to finalize plea negotiations or properly prepare for trial, the

court will continue the trial from April 4, 2006 to July 6, 2006. 

In agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:06-cr-00021-PB Document 9 Filed 03/21/06 Page 1 of 2
2

The March 21, 2006 final pretrial conference is continued

until June 21, 2006 at 4:00 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

March 21, 2006

cc: Jeffrey Levin, Esq.

Helen Fitzgibbon, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00021-PB Document 9 Filed 03/21/06 Page 2 of 2
Summary of Non-Employee Director Fees



 Exhibit 10.25 
  
 NABI BIOPHARMACEUTICALS 
 SUMMARY OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR FEES 
  
 Under Nabi
Biopharmaceuticals’ compensation policy for non-employee directors, each non-employee director receives an annual retainer of $20,000 plus a fee of $1,000 for each Board and committee meeting attended by the director (whether the meeting is in
person or by conference telephone). Currently, each chairperson of a standing Board committee receives an annual retainer of $3,000. Effective May 2005, each member of a standing Board committee will receive an annual retainer of $2,500, and each
chairperson of a standing Board committee will receive an annual retainer of $5,000, except that the chairman of the Audit Committee will receive an annual retainer of $7,500. Fees are paid for attendance at committee meetings even if they are held
on the same day as Board meetings. Directors are reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with attendance at Board and committee meetings. Under Nabi Biopharmaceuticals’ 2004 Stock Plan for Non-Employee Directors, each
non-employee director may elect to be paid his or her annual retainer, in whole or in part, in shares of Common Stock in lieu of cash
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 05-cr-149-01-SM

Thomas Brewster

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 10) is granted.

Trial has been rescheduled for the September 2006 trial period. Defendant shall file a

Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights not later than April 24, 2006. On the filing of such waiver,

his continuance shall be effective.

The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh

the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the

defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into account the

exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Case 1:05-cr-00149-SM Document 11 Filed 04/18/06 Page 1 of 2
2

Final Pretrial Conference: August 28, 2006 at 4:00 PM 

Jury Selection: September 6, 2006 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

April 18, 2006 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Arnold Huftalen, Esq.

 Philip Desfosses, Esq. 

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00149-SM Document 11 Filed 04/18/06 Page 2 of 2