alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD LELAND NEAL,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

B. MARC NEAL; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 15612

D.C. No. 3:16

- cv

- 08291

- DLR

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2018 **

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Richard Leland Neal appeals pro se from the dis trict court’s judgment

dismissing his action alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Organizations Act (“RICO”) . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. W e

review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a motion f or default

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 19 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 15612

judgment. Eitel v. McCool , 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Neal’s motion for

default judgment because defendants serve d a timely responsive motion to the

amended compla int

. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) (authorizing entry of default when

defendant “has failed to plead or otherwise defend”).

We do not consider issues not raised in the opening brief. See Greenwood v.

FAA , 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We review only iss ues which are argued

specifically and distinctly i n a party’s opening brief. We will not manufacture

arguments for an appellan t . . . . ” (citations omitted) ) ; Acosta

– Huerta v. Estelle , 7

F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992) (issues not supported by argument in pro se

appellant’s opening brief are waived)

.

AFFIRMED.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134396 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134396 

 COA: 276743 

Wayne CC: 02-013154 

FRANK NALI,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 26, 2007 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s1119 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2007 

 Clerk
Exhibit
15.1







CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms F-3 (No. 333-213280) and S-8 (No. 333-206803)
of Medigus Ltd. of our report dated March 30, 2017 relating to the financial statements, which appears in this Form 20-F.



















|Tel-Aviv,
    Israel | /s/
    Kesselman     & Kesselman                                
|-------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|March
    30, 2017   | Certified
    Public Accountants (Isr.)                          
|                     | A
    member firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a closed meeting on Thursday, October 21, 2010 at 2 p.m. 

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present. 

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting. 

Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session. 

The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, October 21, 2010 will be:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. 

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: 

The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400. 

Dated: October 14, 2010. 

Elizabeth M. Murphy,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-26280 Filed 10-14-10; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
#### Richard DeWeese *v.*State of Indiana.

[No. 2-173A11.

Filed September 13, 1973.

Rehearing denied October 15, 1973.]

*Robert E. Hughes,*of Indianapolis, for appellant.

*Theodore L. Sendak,*Attorney General, *Robert A. Zaban,*Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

Sullivan, J.

Appellant DeWeese was convicted of assault and battery with intent to kill. One John Clardy, a pedestrian, *504was shot by a shotgun from the rear seat of an automobile occupied by three persons including defendant. The shooting followed a verbal altercation with racial overtones which the driver of the vehicle, Herman Schmitt, terminated with directions to the occupant of the rear seat to “Shoot that nigger”. The victim and another eye witness identified DeWeese as the man in the rear seat who fired the shotgun. DeWeese testified that it was the third occupant of the vehicle who occupied the rear seat and fired the shot.

Appellant’s first assertion of error is confined to the contention that since the evidence identifying him as the person who pulled the trigger is in dispute, such conflict cannot overcome the presumption of innocence and the requirement that the State prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Suffice it to say in disposing of this argument, that disputed questions of fact must be resolved by the trier of fact. The jury did so in this instance. That resolution will not be disturbed upon appeal. *Hardin*v. *State*(1972), 153 Ind. App. 317, 287 N.E.2d 359.

Appellant attempts to present for our consideration a second contention, i.e., that improper and argumentative questions were asked upon the voir dire examination of the jury. He admits, however, that the record before us does not contain such questions nor the objections thereto, if in fact any were made. The purported issue is therefore not before us. See *Judah*v. *Goldsmith*(1929), 90 Ind. App. 81, 164 N.E. 496.

The judgment is hereby affirmed.

Buchanan, P.J. and White, J., concur.

Note. — Reported at 300 N.E.2d 913.
Wherever possible each provision of this Note shall be interpreted in such a manner as to beeffective and valid under applicable law, but if any provision of this Note shall be prohibited orinvalid under applicable law, such provision shall be ineffective to the extent of such prohibitionor invalidity without invalidating the remainder of such provision or remaining provisions of thisNote. No delay or failure on the part of the Bank in the exercise of any right or remedy hereundershall operate as a waiver thereof, nor as an acquiescence in any default, nor shall any single orpartial exercise by the Bank of any right or remedy preclude any other right, or remedy. The Bank,at its option, may enforce its rights against any collateral securing this Note without enforcingits rights against the Borrowers, any guarantor of the indebtedness evidenced hereby or any otherproperty or indebtedness due or to become due to the Borrowers. The Borrowers agree that, withoutreleasing or impairing the Borrowers’ liability hereunder, the Bank may at any time release,surrender, substitute or exchange any collateral securing this Note and may at any time release anyparty primarily or secondarily liable for the indebtedness evidenced by this Note.This Note shall be governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with, the internallaws of the State of Missouri.**BORROWERS HEREBY WAIVE ANY RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY (WHICH BANK ALSO WAIVES) IN ANY ACTION,SUITE, PROCEEDING OR COUNTERCLAIM OF ANY KIND ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS NOTE OR ANY OF THELOAN DOCUMENTS, THE COLLATERAL, OR BANK’S CONDUCT IN RESPECT OF ANY OF THE FOREGOING.**IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Borrowers have caused this Note to be executed and delivered by theirrespective duly authorized representatives as of the date first above written.      **ZOLTEK COMPANIES, INC.**
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ANGELO RICHARDSON.

March 10, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DAVID GODWIN.

March 10, 1987.

Petitions for certification denied.
| e-Appeal Technical SupportRequest FormOMB No. 3124-0017, Exp. 09/30/2026 |  |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|

Please complete this form for assistance with technical issues for MSPB’s e-Appeal system.  Information about this collection can be found on MSPB’s  Privacy Compliance Page. 
| First Name: *      | Required Field!                                                                              |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Last Name: *  | Required Field!                                                                              |
| Email: *           | Required Field!                                                                              |
| e-Appeal Username: |                                                                                              |
| User Role: *       | AppellantAppellant RepresentativeAgency RepresentativeOtherRequired Field!                   |
| Phone:             |                                                                                              |
| Docket Number:     |                                                                                              |
| Case Status:       | Regional Pending/Regional SuspendedPFR Pending/HQ PendingRegional ClosedPFR Closed/HQ Closed |
| Issue: *           | Required Field!                                                                              |
| * Required         | Please provide a valid email address!                                                        |
Exhibit 4.22

      

       

        

      
        
          	
                   

                	
                  
                    

                  

                
	 	 
	 	
                  Lan Huang, Ph.D. 

                  

                  Chief Executive Officer 

                  

                  
                    BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

                    
                      28 Liberty Street, 39th Floor

                    

                  

                  New York, NY 10005

                  Tel: 646.305.6387 

                  

                


           

          

          
            January 1, 2020

            

            

            
              	
                      RE:

                    	
                      ANNUAL SALARY RAISE

                    


            

            Lan Huang

            

            

            Dear Lan,

             

            We are pleased to offer you an increase in your annual base salary from $300,000.00 to $520,000.00. In addition, we are increasing your annual bonus opportunity from 30% of annual salary to 50% of annual salary
              (otherwise subject to the same terms and conditions in your Employment Agreement (defined below). This change will take effect on January 1, 2020.

             

            Except as expressly provided in this letter, your employment agreement with BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, Inc., dated as of April 1, 2016, as amended by that amendment dated as of November 10, 2016, (your
              “Employment Agreement”) shall remain in full force and effect.

             

            Again, congratulations on your achievement and we wish you all the very best in the coming years. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding your new compensation package.

             

            
              Sincerely,

            

             

            

          

          
            	
                    /s/ Lan Huang

                  	
                     

                  
	
                    Lan Huang, Ph.D.

                  	
                     

                  
	
                     

                  	
                     

                  
	
                    Agreed:

                  	 
	 	 
	
                    
                      /s/ Lan Huang

                    

                  	
                     

                  
	
                    
                      Lan Huang, Ph.D.
#### Wiley *v.*Logan.

*Monday, November*19.

*Scire facias*to have execution on a justice’s transcript against lands. *Held,*1. That the *scire facias*need not aver that the justice was informed that the defendant had lands; 2. That it is no objection to the *scire facias,*that the execution of the justice is stated to'have been directed to a special constable; 3. That an averment that the judgment is in force is not necessary.

ERROR to the *Hendricks*Circuit Court.

*C. C. Nave,*for the plaintiff.

*C. Fletcher*and *O. Butler,*for the defendant.

Blackford, *J.*

Scire *facias,*issued by the clerk of the Circuit Court, to show cause why an execution should not issue on the transcript of a justice’s judgment filed in the clerk’s office. Demurrer to the *scire facias,*and the. demurrer sustained.

Three objections are made to the *scire facias.*

First, that there is no averment that the justice was informed that the defendant had lands. Such a statement is unnecessary. If such information "must be given to the justice, it will be presumed, from his furnishing the transcript, that the information was given.

The second objection is, that the *scire facias*does not show that the justice had issued an execution to the proper constable, as is required by the statute. It appears by the *scire facias,*that an execution had issued to a special constable; and that is sufficient. It must be presumed that the constable had been legally appointed.

It is objected in the third place, that the *scire facias*does not aver the judgment to be in forces Such an averment is unnecessary. If the judgment be paid or reversed, the defendant must show it. 1 Chitt. PI. 404.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
# The Soyuz MS-05 rocket is launched with Expedition 52 flight engineers

The Soyuz MS-05 rocket is launched with Expedition 52 flight engineer Sergei Ryazanskiy of Roscosmos, flight engineer Randy Bresnik of NASA, and flight engineer Paolo Nespoli of ESA (European Space Agency), Friday, July 28, 2017 at the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. Ryazanskiy, Bresnik, and Nespoli will spend the next four and a half months living and working aboard the International Space Station.

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/expedition-52-launch-4/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTags- International Space Station
TakenJuly 28, 2017Image CreditNASA/Joel KowskySize4558x2421pxThe National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Mar 05, 2024								 
-  									Page Editor:								  									Mark A. Garcia								 
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JAN-2-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                JUL-4-1999
<CASH>                                       1,199,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  767,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   108,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,320,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,300,000
<PP&E>                                     114,910,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              36,420,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              96,761,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,813,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       134,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  47,685,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                96,761,000
<SALES>                                     78,158,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            78,328,000
<CGS>                                       23,436,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               57,877,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            12,713,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,116,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,622,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,622,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .48


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.1
Cronos Global Income Fund XIV, L.P.
Rule 13a-14 CERTIFICATION
     I, Dennis J. Tietz, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cronos GlobalIncome Fund XIV, L.P. (the “Registrant”);
     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisquarterly report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theRegistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
     4. The other certifying officer of Cronos Capital Corp. (“CCC”), theGeneral Partner of the Registrant, and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and we have:
          (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared; and
          (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, based on ourevaluation; and
          (c) disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
     5. CCC’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theRegistrant’s auditors and the Audit Committee of Registrant’s Board ofDirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
          (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
          (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: November 12, 2004
/s/ DENNIS J TIETZDennis J Tietz