alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.3
 FORM OF NONSTATUTORY
STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
 THIS NONSTATUTORY STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT   CRAFT BREWERS ALLIANCE, INC.
 RECITALS
 2007 Stock Incentive Plan
  NOW THEREFORE,
 1. Grant of the Option.
 2. Term of the Option.
 3. Exercisability.
 4. Exercise of the Option.




---



##### 



5. Tax Withholding and Reimbursement.
 6. Acceptance of Option; Further Assurances.




---



##### 



7. Entire Agreement; Amendments; Binding Effect.
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 Company
    
    
    
    CRAFT BREWERS ALLIANCE, INC.By[Name][Title]Optionholder[Name]




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
 NOTICE OF STOCK OPTION EXERCISE
 CRAFT BREWERS ALLIANCE, INC.
2007 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
 To:
    
    Craft Brewers Alliance, Inc.929 North Russell StreetPortland, Oregon 97227Attention:Optionholder:Print NameMailing Address:Telephone Number:Option:
    
    The option evidenced by an Option Agreement dated , ___.
 OPTION EXERCISE
  Number of Shares Purchased (a)Per-Share Option Price (b)
    
    
    $Aggregate Purchase Price (a times b)
    
    
    $Closing Date of PurchaseForm of Payment [Check One]:
 o
    
    My check in the full amount of the Aggregate Purchase Price (as well as a
check for any withholding taxes, if this 
box  ̈ is checked). See
Instructions below.o
    
    Delivery of previously owned shares of CBAI common stock with a fair market
value equal to the Aggregate Purchase Price (as well as any withholding taxes,
if this box  ̈ is checked). See Instructions below. Note that
restricted shares acquired from CBAI under one of its stock plans may be used
for this purpose only if such shares have become vested.
 A-1




---



##### 



o
    
    My irrevocable direction to my securities broker (see below) to sell Shares
subject to the Option and deliver a portion of
 the sales proceeds to Craft
Brewers Alliance, Inc., in full payment of the Aggregate Purchase Price (as
well as any withholding taxes, if this box  ̈ is checked). See
Instructions below. I hereby confirm that any sale of Shares will be 
in
compliance with CBAIs policies on insider trading and Rule 144, if applicable.
I HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AUTHORIZE  to transfer funds to
Craft Brewers Alliance, Inc., from my account in payment of the (name of broker)
 Aggregate Purchase Price (and
withholding taxes, if applicable) and Craft
 Brewers Alliance, Inc., is
hereby directed to issue the
Shares for my account with such broker and to
transmit
the Shares to the broker indicated above.
 Instructions:
    ISSUANCE INSTRUCTIONS FOR STOCK CERTIFICATES
  
 o o o
 A-2




---



##### 



o
    
    My brokerage account
 Attn:Account
    
    No.:
    
    
    ; or
 o
    
    My mailing address set forth above.
 Date
    
    Signature of Participant
 ATTESTATION FORM
     A-3




---



##### 



Common Stock 
Certificate Number
    
    Number of
Shares Covered
 
 Print Name of Optionholder:Signature of Optionholder:Print Name of Joint Owner:Signature of Joint Owner:
   Name of Brokerage FirmDate:
    
    
    
    
    
    By:Telephone
No.:Print Name of Signing Broker
 A-4
#### CITY OF NEWARK v. ESSEX COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION.

June 21, 1978.

Petition for certification denied. (See 155 *N. J. Super.*586)
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**WARRENRESOURCES, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Warren Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Norman F. Swanton, Chairman ofthe Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)                        TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ Norman F. Swanton |   |
|-----------------------|--------|

Norman F. Swanton

#### ***Chairmanof the Board***

*And Chief Executive Officer*

 

August 3, 2006

 

----
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 No.333-91369) of Aether Systems, Inc. (“the Company”)pertaining to the Company’s 1999 Equity Incentive Plan, the Company’s RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 No. 333-52220) pertaining to the Company’s 1999 EquityIncentive Plan, the Company’s Registration Statement (Form S-8 No 333-52222)pertaining to the Company’s Acquisitions Incentive Plan, the Company’sRegistration Statement (Form S-3 No 333-48898) pertaining to 1,143,949 sharesof the Company’s common stock, the Company’s Registration Statement (Form S-3No 333-56154) pertaining to 3,023,560 shares of the Company’s common stock, theCompany’s Registration Statement (Form S-3 No 333-64264) pertaining to 245,973shares of the Company’s common stock and the Company’s Registration Statement(Form S-3 No 333-74428) pertaining to 752,483 shares of the Company’s commonstock, of our report with respect to the financial statements of SilaCommunications Limited dated February 5, 2002 included in the Company’s AnnualReport (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.

 

| **/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP** |
|-------------------------------|

 

London, England

March 31, 2003

 

----
DISMISS ; and Opinion Filed July 30, 2013. 

# S

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 00622

- CV

HERMAN BRASHEAR , Appellant V. D. VINEYARDS, L.P. D /B/A THE VINEYARDS APARTMENTS , Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 13

- 02418

- E

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Moseley, Bridges, and Lang

- Miers Opinion by Justice Lang

- Miers Before the Court is appe llant’s motion for nonsuit. Appellant has informed the Court that
he no longer desires to prosecute this matter. We treat appellant’s motion as a motion to dismiss.
We grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

130622F.P05 /Elizabeth Lang

- Miers/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE– 2

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

HERMAN BRASHEAR, Appellant

No. 05

- 13

- 00622

- CV V.

D. VINEYARDS, L.P. D/B/A THE VINEYARDS APARTMENTS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas. Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 13

- 02418

- E. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang

- Miers. Justices Moseley and Bridges, participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this d ate, the appeal is DISMISSED

.
It is ORDERED that appellee, D. VINEYARDS, L.P. D/B/A THE VINEYARDS APARTMENTS, recover its costs of this appeal from appellant, HERMAN BRASHEAR.

Judgment entered this 30 th day of July, 2013.

/Elizabeth Lang

- Miers/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         4,096,818
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               980,047
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    37,285,150
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         22,423,486
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           21,820,170
<LOANS>                                        118,375,035
<ALLOWANCE>                                    647,403
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 188,925,793
<DEPOSITS>                                     152,333,207
<SHORT-TERM>                                   5,525,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            2,560,662
<LONG-TERM>                                    10,580,657
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       4,964,166
<OTHER-SE>                                     12,962,101
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 188,925,783
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                2,547,663
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              955,902
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               2,411
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               3,505,976
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             1,767,682
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,991,111
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          1,514,865
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  474,486
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                1,055,338
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                993,074
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     993,074
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   584,497
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.53
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 3.10
<LOANS-NON>                                    456,974
<LOANS-PAST>                                   532,632
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               1,211,594
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  91,261
<RECOVERIES>                                   1,555
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              647,403
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           256,103
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        391,300


</TABLE>
1 min read

# Early Career Faculty 2022

### Loura Hall

Aug 19, 2022

Article

            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   

**Development of Lightweight Solar Sail Attitude Control Technologies**
            - Ryan Caverly    University of Minnesota   CABLESSail: Cable-Actuated Bio-inspired Lightweight Elastic Solar Sail  
            - Artur Davoyan   University of California, Los Angeles   Metamaterial Solar Sail Attitude Control System

**Hibernation and Recovery of Solar-Powered Systems for Lunar Missions**
            - Kelsey Hatzell    Princeton University   Advanced In Situ and Operando Characterization of Batteries Under Ultra-low Temperature Conditions  
            - Zheyu Zhang   Clemson University   Characterization and Application of Cryogenic Power Semiconductors in Lightweight, Fault-tolerant Systems for Lunar Missions  
            - Yangying Zhu   University of California, Santa Barbara   Characterization of Lithium-Ion Battery Cycling Through the Freeze-thaw Process

**Tailorable Composite Design Concepts towards Dimensionally Stable Structures**
            - Brandon Chalifoux   University of Arizona    Sapphire Composite Lattices with Ultrafast Laser-tunable Thermal Expansion  
            - Ramathasan Thevamaran    University of Wisconsin-Madison   Hierarchically Tailorable Composites with Extreme Thermo-mechanical Properties for Dimensionally Stable Space Structures

**Back to ECF**

## Discover More Topics From STRG

Space Technology Mission Directorate

STMD Solicitations and Opportunities

Space Technology Research Grants

About STRG
NASA Advisory Council Recommendation 

Interactive Link between the NASA Advisory Council 

and the National Space Council 

2017-03-01 (HEOC-01) 

Recommendation: 

The Council recommends that NASA work with the National Space Council staff to establish an 

interactive link between the NASA Advisory Council and the National Space Council. 

Major Reasons for the Recommendation: 

The implementation of the National Space Council provides an excellent opportunity for NASA 

to bring up problems and gain assistance in resolving issues which affect the broader space 

community, such as the dwindling supplier base for some critical space components. The NASA 

Advisory Council has tremendous insight into NASA, and could provide valuable input to the 

National Space Council staff on significant issues which have not reached the urgency level 

required for discussion at formal National Space Council meetings. 

Consequences of No Action on the Recommendation: 

NASA will lose opportunities to gain the help of the National Space Council on issues that may 

not yet have reached the urgency level required to be brought up and discussed by the National 

Space Council members. 

NASA Response: 

NASA concurs with this recommendation in part. The NASA Advisory Council (NAC) has a 

longstanding and vitally important role in providing independent advice to the NASA 

Administrator across the breadth and depth of NASA's entire programmatic portfolio. Its 

members are nationally recognized individuals with experience in executive leadership, 

aerospace engineering, and scientific expertise stemming from distinguished careers in 

government, private industry, and academia. NASA Acting Administrator Lightfoot believes 

that the unique perspectives of the NAC would be valuable for the National Space Council to 

consider, perhaps in coordination with its own new Federal advisory committee, the Users' 

Advisory Group (UAG). The NAC provides advice to the NASA Administrator and NASA's 

Associate Administrators under Federal Advisory Committee Act (F ACA) procedures specified 

in the NAC's charter. NASA will work with the National Space Council in the weeks and 

months ahead to identify an appropriate F ACA compliant mechanism for NAC perspectives to 

be shared with the National Space Council and will keep the NAC apprised.
| Subsidiaries                         |   | State      or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization |
|--------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                 |   |                                                              |
| SonicWALL      B.V.                  |   | Netherlands                                                       |
| Sonicwall      AG                    |   | Switzerland                                                       |
| SonicWALL      Mexico                |   | Mexico                                                            |
| SonicWALL      Shanghai Limited      |   | China                                                             |
| SonicWALL      Services Private Ltd. |   | India                                                             |
| SonicWALL      Russia LLC            |   | Russia                                                            |
| Aventail      LLC                    |   | Delaware                                                          |
| Aventail      Europe Ltd.            |   | United      Kingdom                                               |
| Aventail      France SARL            |   | France                                                            |
| Aventail      GmbH                   |   | Germany                                                           |
| Aventail      InfoTech Private Ltd.  |   | India                                                             |
#### Stephenson *v.*Herod.

Action of assumpsit commenced in the Circuit Court. Two counts, the first on a note for forty dollars, the second on an account stated for the same amount. After judgment against the defendant by default, the plaintiff entered a *noli. pros,*as to the second count. *Held,*that, under the statute of 1843, the plaintiff might have judgment for the amount of the note, but that the defendant was entitled to a judgment for costs.

ERROR to the *Daviess*Circuit Court.

Dewey, *J.*

Herod sued *Stephenson*in assumpsit, in the Circuit Court, on a promissory note for forty dollars; he also added a count upon an *insimul computassent*for a like sum. After an interlocutory judgment by default against the defendant, the plaintiff entered a *nolle prosequi*as to the second count. The Court assessed the damages under the first count, and rendered a judgment in favour of the plaintiff for the amount of the note and for costs.

This is wrong so far as the costs are concerned. By the fifth section of the justice’s act it is provided that actions of debt, covenant, or *assumpsit,*wherein the sum due or demanded shall exceed fifty dollars, and not exceed one hundred dollars, the Circuit Courts and justices of the peace shall have concurrent jurisdiction; but when the original amount specified in any bill, note, &c., shall have been reduced by credits indorsed thereon to a sum not exceeding fifty dollars, exclusive of interest, the action on the same shall be commenced before a justice of the peace; R. S. 1843, p. 864; or if commenced in the Circuit Court, as provided by the tenth section, p. 865, the plaintiff shall be adjudged to pay the costs. We conceive notes, &c., originally for a sum not exceeding fifty dollars to be within the spirit of these provisions. The plaintiff, having commenced his action in the Circuit Court on a note within the statute, was entitled to a judgment for the amount of the note; but there should have been a judgment in favour of the defendant for the costs. The count, with regard to which the plaintiff entered a *nolle prosequi*without explanation, cannot aid him. To suffer it to do so would be sanctioning an evasion of the statute. The declaration stands as if the second count never was in it. See *Hutchens*v. *Sm.ith,*at this term.

*174*J. S. Watts,*for the plaintiff.

*E. S. Terry,*for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

That part of the judgment which is against the defendant for costs is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,



In connection with the annual report on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 (the Report) of Newtek Business Services, Inc. (the Company), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, the undersigned, Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies that to the best of my knowledge:



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



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Newtek as of and for the periods covered in
the Report.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    Barry SloaneBarry Sloane, Chief Executive Officer   /s/    Brian A. WassermanBrian A. Wasserman, Chief Financial Officer




March 30, 2004
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-16-00113-CV

Peter E. Pratt, Jr., Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, et al., Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GV-08-001748, HONORABLE GISELA D. TRIANA, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Peter E. Pratt, Jr., claiming to be acting in the capacity of a court-appointed receiver

in a post-judgment equitable receivership, filed a notice of appeal challenging a trial court order 1

granting an accounting. The appellate record must include the clerk’s record from the trial court.2

The clerk’s record in this cause was due in this Court on March 3, 2016, but no record was filed.3

We received notice from the Travis County district clerk’s office on March 7, 2016, that Pratt

has neither paid nor made arrangement for payment of the record. If the clerk’s record is not filed 4

because the appellant failed to pay, this Court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.5

 The record before us does not elaborate further regarding the subject of the receivership. 1

 See Tex. R. App. P. 34.1, 34.5(a).

2

 See id. R. 35.1(b). 3

Nor has Pratt preserved any claim that he is entitled to proceed without payment of costs. 4

See id. R. 20.1(2), 37.3(b).

 See id. R. 37.3(b). 5
On March 9, 2016, we sent notice to Pratt that the clerk’s record was overdue and that

the appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution if Pratt did not make arrangements for the

clerk’s record or submit a status report to this Court on or before March 21, 2016. To date, Pratt has

not responded in any way, and the clerk’s record has not been filed. Accordingly, we dismiss the

appeal for want of prosecution.6

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Bourland

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: May 26, 2016

See id. R. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c).

6

2
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein Joan L. Larsen,
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.

November 25, 2015

t1118 

# Order

Clerk November 25, 2015

151618

MICHELE COMPAU and TODD COMPAU

, Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

v SC: 151618 COA: 320615 Iosco CC: 12

- 007121

- NO PIONEER RESOURCE COMPANY, LLC, WALTER A KILBOURN, d/b/a WHITTEMORE INN, and WHITTEMORE INN RACE CLUB, Defendants

- Appellants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 16, 2015 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE in p art the judgment of the Court of Appeals and we REINSTATE the February 19, 2014 order of the Iosco Circuit Court that granted the defendants’ motion for summary disposition. The plaintiffs’ injuries arose when plaintiff Michele Compau tripped over a railro ad tie on the defendants’ property. When a plaintiff’s injury arises from an allegedly dangerous condition on the land, the action sounds in premises liability rather than ordinary negligence, even when the plaintiff alleges that the premises possessor cre ated the condition giving rise to the plaintiff's injury. Buhalis v Trinity Continuing Care Servs , 296 Mich App 685, 692 (2012). The railroad tie was an allegedly dangerous condition on the land, but it was open and obvious. Thus, the plaintiffs’ recovery is barred by the open and obvious danger

doctrine. Lugo v Ameritech Corp, Inc , 464 Mich 512, 516

- 519, 522 (2001). Because plaintiff Michele Compau testified that she had seen the railroad tie when she arrived to watch the lawn mower races, the plaintiffs h ave failed to present evidence to support that the lawn mower races were so distracting as to preclude application of the open and obvious danger doctrine. See Kennedy v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co , 274 Mich App
710, 717

- 718 (2007).

B ERNSTEIN

, J., wo uld deny leave to appeal.