alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NUMBER 13
- 1 2
- 001 33
- C V

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

JOSEPH BURT AND MARCO PIZANA , Appellant s ,

v.
ANNETTE CERDA AND BELIA CERDA , Appellee s
.

On appeal from the 2 75 th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.



## ORDER ABATING APPEAL

Before Justices Garza , Benavides, and Perkes

Order Per Curiam
This cause is before the Court because the court reporter has failed to timely file the reporter ’ s record. The reporter ’ s record in this cause was originally due to be filed

on April 7, 2012

. On May 9, 2013, this Court abated and remanded the case to the trial court because the record had not been filed. The trial court made findings that the delay in preparation of the r ecord was due to circumstances beyond the control of the parties,2

the court, or the court reporter. This Court directed the reporter to file the record on or before October 18, 2013. The reporter requested an extension of time to file the record which was granted by the

Court. When the record was not filed, the Court entered an order for the record to be

file d on or before March 14, 2014. The order stated that no further motions for extension of time would be entertained by the Court. On March 29, 2014, t he reporter filed a partial reporter’s record consisting of six volumes. The master index indicat es that the exhibits are contained in volumes seven through nine. The exhibit volumes have not been filed. Accordingly, the Court once again ABATES and REMANDS this cause to the trial court for further consideration. The trial court shall make appropriat e findings under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 34.6(f) and 35.3, if necessary. Otherwise, the court shall determine what steps are necessary to ensure the prompt preparation of a complete reporter's record, and shall enter any orders required to avoi d further delay and to preserve the parties ’ rights. The trial court shall prepare and file its findings and orders and cause them to be included in a supplemental clerk's record which should be submitted to the Clerk of this Court within thirty days fro m the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 15th d ay of May , 201 4

.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SHAOHUA C HANG,

Pe t i tione r, v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 16-71456 Age n c y No. A089-747-808 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 10, 2019 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R

AW LINSON, IKUTA, a

nd B A DE, C irc uit Judge s. 

# F IL ED SEP 13 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Sha ohua C ha ng pe titions for re vie w of a n orde r of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA) a ffirm ing thede c ision of a n Im m igration Judge(IJ) de ny ing he r c la im for a sy lum . 1 W e hav e jurisdic tion under 8 U.S.C . § 1252. The B IA’ s de te rm ination tha t C ha ng did not te stify

c re dibly is supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . C ha

ng’ s te stim ony

tha t she wa s introduc e d to C hristia nity in 2005, wa s inc o nsiste nt with her son’ s te stim ony , whic h indic ate d tha t C ha ng ha d be e n a pra c tic ing C hristia n ove r te n y e ars e arlie r. This inc onsiste nc y wa s not m inor, c f. Re n v . Holde r , 648 F.3d 1079, 1086 (9th C ir. 2011); ra t he r, it unde rc ut C ha ng’ s te stim ony

tha t she wa s introduc e d

to C hristia

nity a s a re sult of une m ploy m e nt and wa s pe rse c ute d shortly the re a fte r. M o re ove r, the IJ’ s c onc lusion tha

t C h ang’ s “ e xplosive ” inte rruption of he r son’ s te s tim o ny we i ghe d a ga inst he r c re dibility

is e ntitle d to pa

rtic ula r de fe re nc e be c a

use it is a n a sse ssm e nt of C ha ng’ s de m e an or. Se eLing Huang v . Holde r , 744 F.3d 1149, 1153–54 (9th C ir. 2014). Furthe r, the IJ’ s a nd B IA’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation wa s a lso supporte d by the la c k of de ta i l in C ha ng’ s te stim ony

re g arding he r prior a

b ortion

1 B e c a use C ha ng did not cha lle nge the IJ’ s de nia ls of withholding of re m ova l a nd prote c tion under the C onve ntion Against Torture(C AT) in he r a ppe a l to theB IA, the se c la im s we re not e xha uste d, a nd we la c k jurisdic tion to a ddre ss the m he re . Se eBarron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th C ir. 2004). 2and he r ina

bility to re c a ll im

porta nt da te s in he r life . Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii). Fina lly , the IJ wa s not re quire d to a fford C ha ng a n opportunity

to provide a dditional c orroborative e vide nc e be c a use the IJ de te rm i ne d tha

t C ha ng’ s te stim ony wa s not c re dible . Se eYali W a ng v . Se ssions , 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th C ir. 2017); Re n , 648 F.3d a t 1091–92. W ithout C ha

n g ’ s c re dible te s tim ony , the re is insuffic ie nt e vide nc e in the re c o rd for C ha

n g to m e e t he r burde n of proving e ligibility for a sy lum . PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

3
Exhibit 4.20

    

    

    
      AMENDMENT TO 

      EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

       

      The Employment Agreement by and between BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) and Richard Daly (the “Employee”) dated as of June 8, 2018 (the “Agreement”) is hereby amended , effective as of September 24, 2019, as follows:

       

      
        
          	1.	
                  The final sentence of Section 3.a. of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

                


        

      

       

      “The Company hereby covenants and agrees to perform a comprehensive compensation review of all executives no later than December 31, 2019, and to implement  a  competitive, broad-based compensation increase program in connection therewith that includes Employee, such program to be made retroactive to August 1, 2019.”

       

      
        
          	2.	
                  Except as explicitly set forth herein, the Agreement will remain in full force and effect.

                


        

      

      

      

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this amendment effective as of the date written above.

       

      	 	
              BEYONDSPRING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

            
	 	 	 
	 	
              By:  

              

            	
              /s/ Lan Huang

            
	 	 	 
	 	
              Its:  

              

            	
              CEO

            


      

      

      	 	
              EMPLOYEE

            
	 	 
	 	
              /s/ Richard Daly

            
	 	
              Richard Daly
#### The State *v.*Miller.

An indictment under the statute of 1838, charging that the defendant kept a room “.to be used and occupied for gambling,” is sufficient, — an allegation that gambling had actually taken place in the room not being necessary.

*Tuesday, May*25.

ERROR *tb*the *Franklin*Circuit Court.

Dewey, J.

The indictment in this case charges, that the defendant kept a room “ to be used and occupied for gambling.” The defendant moved the Court to quash the indictment. The motion was sustained, and the defendant discharged.

The prosecution is founded on a statute which provides, that “ if any person or persons shall keep a room, building, arbor, booth, shed, or tenement, to be used and occupied for *503gambling, or if any person or persons, being the owner of any room, &c., shall rent the same to be used and occupied for gambling, the person or persons so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be fined,” &c. R. S. 1838, p. 325.

*W. J. Peaslee,*for the state.

*J.*Ryman, for the defendant.

The objection urged against the indictment is, that it does not allege that gambling had actually taken place in the room charged to have been, kept for the purpose of gambling. This objection cannot be sustained. The offence created by the statute is the keeping or renting a room, &c. with the intention and purpose that gambling shall be carried on in it. The intention is a matter of proof; and if that can be established, it is immaterial whether the prohibited establishment shall find customers or not. The indictment charges the offence in the language of the statute, and makes a case clearly within its spirit. It is, besides, conformable to precedents in similar cases. 3 Chitt. C. L. 372.

*Per*Curiam.

-The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
sndx-ex103_505.htm



 



Exhibit 10.3

 
SYNDAX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
AMENDED & RESTATED

NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION POLICY

 

Effective:  February 12, 2020

 

Each member of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) who is not also serving as an employee of Syndax Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) or any of its subsidiaries will receive the compensation described in this Amended and Restated Non-Employee Director Compensation Policy for his or her Board service. This policy may be amended at any time in the sole discretion of the Board.

 

Each non-employee director serving on the Board of the Company will receive an annual base cash fee for his or her services of $40,000. Each non-employee director other than the non-executive chairperson of the Board (the “Chair”) shall also receive an annual award of options to purchase 24,000 shares and the Chair shall also receive an annual award of options to purchase 44,000 shares (each as adjusted for stock splits, stock dividends, recapitalization and similar events) of the Company’s common stock on the same date that the Board awards annual stock option grants to the Company’s executive officers (each an “Annual Option Award”). Each Annual Option Award will vest on the one-year anniversary of the date of grant, subject to the director’s continued service to the Company.

 

Newly appointed non-employee directors will receive at the time of his or her appointment to the Board, a one-time initial award of options to purchase 35,000 shares (as adjusted for stock splits, stock dividends, recapitalization and similar events) of the Company’s common stock (the “New Director Award”). Each New Director Award will vest monthly over a three-year period.

 

The Chair will also receive an annual cash retainer of $70,000 for his or her service in such role.

 

Each non-employee director, other than the chairperson of such committee, who serves on the following committees will receive an annual cash retainer, for each committee on which he or she serves, as listed below:

 

•Audit committee – $10,000

•Compensation committee – $7,500

•Nominating and corporate governance committee – $5,000

 

Each chairperson of the audit, compensation, nominating and corporate governance and science and technology committees will receive an additional annual cash retainer as follows:

 

•Audit committee – $20,000

•Compensation committee – $15,000

•Nominating and corporate governance committee – $10,000

 

The Company will also reimburse each of the directors for his or her travel expenses incurred in connection with his or her attendance at Board and committee meetings. All cash retainers will be paid in equal quarterly installments.
# KSC-04pd1497

KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, FLA. - The boat with NEEMO-6 personnel ties up at the dock in Key Largo after a training session offshore at NASA’s undersea research station, named Aquarius.  At right is Bill Todd, project lead. The NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations 6 (NEEMO-6) mission involves spacewalk-like diving excursions and field-testing a variety of biomedical equipment designed to help astronauts living aboard the International Space Station.  The NEEMO-6 team comprises astronaut John Herrington, mission commander, astronauts Doug Wheelock and Nick Patrick, and biomedical engineer Tara Ruttley.  To prepare for their 10-day stay, the team had dive training twice a day at the Life Support Buoy, anchored above Aquarius.

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-ksc-04pd1497/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTakenJuly 7, 2004ProducerKSCSize1920x1440pxPIA NumberKSC-04pd1497The 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:								  								Apr 26, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, L. George
Klaus, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Epicor Software Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Epicor Software Corporation.



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ L. George Klaus    
|    |  | L. George Klaus        
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer



I, Michael A. Piraino, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Epicor Software Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Epicor Software Corporation.



|    |  |                          
|--- |  | -------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Michael A. Piraino   
|    |  | Michael A. Piraino       
|    |  | Senior Vice President and
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer  
|    |  | (Principal Financial and 
|    |  | Accounting Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 203 (Thursday, October 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 65018]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26665]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 
Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special 
Exposure Cohort

AGENCY: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: HHS gives notice of a decision to designate a class of 
employees from Revere Copper and Brass, Detroit, Michigan, as an 
addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy 
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On 
October 6, 2010, the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of 
employees as an addition to the SEC:

    All Atomic Weapons Employer employees who worked at Revere 
Copper and Brass, Detroit, Michigan, from July 24, 1943 through 
December 31, 1954, for a number of work days aggregating at least 
250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in 
combination with work days within the parameters established for one 
or more other classes of employees included in the Special Exposure 
Cohort.

    This designation will become effective November 5, 2010, unless 
Congress provides otherwise prior to the effective date. After this 
effective date, HHS will publish a notice in the Federal Register 
reporting the addition of this class to the SEC or the result of any 
provision by Congress regarding the decision by HHS to add the class to 
the SEC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Interim Director, 
Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, 
Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can 
also be submitted by e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f1b5b2b0a2b1b2b5b2dfb6bea7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1054535143505354533e575f46">[email protected]</span></a>.

John Howard,
Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2010-26665 Filed 10-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-19-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
- OCIO   - OCIO Home
  - About the OCIO
  - IT Talk
  - NASA IT Strategic Plan
  - NASA Records Management
  - Accessibility at NASA
- Strategy Division
- Cybersecurity and Privacy Division   - CSPD Home
  - Privacy Program
  - Cybersecurity Policies
  - Supply Chain Risk Management
  - Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
- Operations Division

# Computer Matching Notices and Agreements

Per NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) 1382.1, in accordance with the Privacy Act, a computer matching agreement and public notice of the proposed match will be published in the Federal Register before NASA matches any of its SORs with a SOR of another Federal entity or with non-Federal records

about Computer Matching Notices and Agreements

**NASA Computer Matching Agreements**At present, NASA does not maintain any Computer Matching Agreements.

**Data Integrity Board**The NASA SAOP shall establish a Data Integrity Board that is responsible for approving, overseeing, and coordinating the matching program before any ISO may engage in a computer matching program as defined by the Privacy Act.

# Privacy Act

The Privacy Act of 1974 requires federal agencies to publish a System of Records Notice (SORN) in the Federal Register describing a new or modified system of record (SOR).

As defined by the Privacy Act, a SOR is a collection of records on individuals maintained by NASA from which information is routinely retrieved by the name of the individual or other personal identifier. A SOR is not necessarily an IT system; it can be a collection of paper records too.

Per federal requirement and NASA policy, SORNs are published in the Federal Register for any electronic or non-electronic SORs that contains information on individuals that is routinely retrieved by personal identifiers.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,504,992
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  495,856
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     12,993
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,074,334
<PP&E>                                         854,055
<DEPRECIATION>                               (528,713)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,431,853
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          957,681
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,030
<COMMON>                                       466,613
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,006,529
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,431,853
<SALES>                                      1,035,700
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,035,700
<CGS>                                         (98,066)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (98,066)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (633,519)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (17,171)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                317,846
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (35,271)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            282,575
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   282,575
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>
#### IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE LICENSURE OF NICHOLAS ANDRIAN TO PRACTICE NURSING IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY.

November 10, 1986.

Petition for certification denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 January 27, 2021

s0120

Order 

Clerk

January 27, 2021

161605

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 161605

COA: 342999

Saginaw CC: 17-043735-FC

GERALD LYNN ALLEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 17, 2020 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE Part III.B.2 of the judgment of the Court of 

Appeals and we REMAND this case to that court for reconsideration of the defendant’s 

ineffective assistance of counsel claim, based on trial counsel’s failure to call witnesses, 

under the correct standard. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that “[b]ecause Allen 

was not deprived of a substantial defense, trial counsel’s decision not to call Dr. Hicks 

and Dr. Defriez as witnesses at trial did not fall below an objective standard of 

reasonableness and counsel was not ineffective in this respect.” People v Allen, ___ 

Mich App ___ (2020), slip op p 10. The defendant was not required to show, in order to 

obtain relief for ineffective assistance of counsel, that trial counsel’s failure to call 

witnesses deprived him of a substantial defense. Rather, a claim of ineffective assistance 

of counsel premised on the failure to call witnesses is analyzed under the same standard 

as all other claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, i.e., a defendant must show that 

“(1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) but 

for counsel’s deficient performance, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome 

would have been different.” People v Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich 38, 51 (2012); see also 

Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 (1984). On remand, the Court of Appeals shall 

resolve the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under this standard. In 

all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.