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








AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO


2019 INDUCEMENT STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 


OF 


IVERIC BIO, INC.


The 2019 Inducement Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) of IVERIC bio, Inc. (the “Company”) is hereby amended as follows (all capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed to such terms in the Plan):


1.     Section 4(a)(1) of the Plan be and hereby is deleted in its entirety and the following is inserted in lieu thereof:
 
(1)       Authorized Number of Shares. Subject to adjustment under Section 9, Awards may be made under the Plan for up to 2,000,000 shares of common stock, $0.001 par value per share, of the Company (the “Common Stock”). Shares issued under the Plan may consist in whole or in part of authorized but unissued shares or treasury shares.


2.     Except as set forth herein, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
 
* * *




Approved by the Board of Directors on March 27, 2020.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1716 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1716

 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize the use 
  of funds made available for nonpoint source management programs for 
projects and activities relating to the development and implementation 
of phase II of the storm water program of the Environmental Protection 
                                Agency.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 3, 2003

  Mr. Chafee (for himself, Mr. Bond, and Mr. Jeffords) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize the use 
  of funds made available for nonpoint source management programs for 
projects and activities relating to the development and implementation 
of phase II of the storm water program of the Environmental Protection 
                                Agency.

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

SECTION 1. PHASE II STORM WATER PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT.

    Section 319(h) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
U.S.C. 1329(h)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(13) Phase ii storm water implementation.--A State may 
        use funds from a grant provided under this subsection--
                    ``(A) to carry out a project or activity relating 
                to the development or implementation of phase II of the 
                storm water program of the Environmental Protection 
                Agency established by the final rule entitled `National 
                Pollutant Discharge Elimination System--Regulations for 
                Revision of the Water Pollution Control Program 
                Addressing Storm Water Discharges'', promulgated by the 
                Administrator on December 8, 1999 (64 Fed. Reg. 68722); 
                and
                    ``(B) to implement a management program in a 
                geographic jurisdiction for phase II of the program 
                described in subparagraph (A).''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Lasselle *v.*Brown.

In a suit against husband and wife for a debt contracted by the wife whilst sole, the admissions of the latter made during coverture, are not admissible evidence.

But if pending such suit the husband die, and the suit proceed against the wife alone, her admissions of the debt made as aforesaid are evidence against her.

ERROR to the *Allen*Circuit Court.

Blackford, *J.*

Lasselle brought an action of assumpsit against *Joseph Brown*and *Nancy Brown,*his wife, before a justice of the peace. Plea, the general issue. The justice gave judgment for the plaintiff; and the defendants appealed to the Circuit Court. Whilst the suit was pending in the Circuit Court, *Joseph Brown,*one of the defendants, died, and his death was suggested on the record by the plaintiff. The cause proceeded between the plaintiff and *Nancy Brown,*the surviving defendant. On the trial, the' plaintiff-offered to prove that the defendant, *Nancy Brown,*had admitted, in the presence of the witness, that the accounts filed in this cause as a cause of action, were contracted with, and due by her to, the plaintiff, before her marriage with the said *Joseph Brown,*deceased; and that, at the time this admission was made by said defendant, the items of said accounts were carefully read over to her by the witness. The evidence was objected to, and the objection was sustained. Verdict and judgment for the defendant.

There is no doubt but that in a suit asainst husband and *222wife, for a debt contracted by the wife whilst sole, the admissions of the latter, made during the coverture, are not legal evidence. *Barron*v. *Grillard,*3 Ves. & Beam. *165.*— Th*e*City *Bank*v. *Bangs et al.*3 Paige, *36.*— Brown *et ux.*v. *Lasselle,*6 Blaclcf. 147. In such suit the husband is the responsible party, and the wife is made a defendant only for form; and the doctrine, that the wife shall not give evidence against her husband, applies. But that doctrine is not applicable, where, as in the case before us, the wife has survived her husband, and the suit is against her alone, tier liability now is the same that it was before her marriage, and her admissions of the debt must be evidence against her. It has been decided, that the declarations of a married woman, during coverture, of the non-payment of money lent to her before marriage, are admissible evidence in support of an action against her husband as her administrator. *Humphreys*v. *Boyce,*1 M. & Rob. 140. That case is, in principle, similar to the one before us.

*R. Brackenridge,*for the plaintiff.

*H. Cooper,*for the defendant.

The Court erred in rejecting the evidence.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

MANUEL VICENTE ANTUNA, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-2881

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed February 13, 2019. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Charlotte 

County; John L. Burns, Acting Circuit 

Judge.

Manuel Vicente Antuna, pro se.

Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Michael Schaub, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KELLY, BLACK, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 32.1 Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002Laurel Capital Group, Inc.In connection with the Quarterly Report of Laurel Capital Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Edwin R. Maus, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periodcovered by the Report.   /s/ Edwin R. Maus   Edwin R. Maus  President and Chief Executive Officer  May 15, 2006
EXHIBIT 32.2











CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.  SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Promotora Valle Hermoso, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Iuriy Vladimirovich Shevchenko, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  section
1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Iuriy Vladimirovich ShevchenkoIuriy Vladimirovich Shevchenko, Chief Financial OfficerAugust 6 , 2009
|   | (1)    |   | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                     |
|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |                                                                                                                                                                |
|   | (2)    |   | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |

|   |   |                            |   |                           |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------|
|   |   | /s/      Jean-Pierre Sommadossi |   |                           |
|   |   | Jean-Pierre      Sommadossi     |   |       |
|   |   | Chief      Executive Officer    |   |                           |

----
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration

Mary W. Jackson Building NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001

March 17, 2022

Reply to Attn of: General Law Practice Group
TO: Distribution
FROM: Agency Counsel for Ethics

SUBJECT: Determination Regarding Attendance by NASA Employees at the Satellite
Industry Association Dinner on March 21, 2022

On March 21, 2022, the Satellite Industry Association (SIA), a not-for-profit organization
under Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Service Code, will hold a dinner at The
International Spy Museum in Washington, DC, from 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. SIA is in
control of the planning, organizing, and issuing invitations for this event. The event will

provide an opportunity to discuss the highlights and roles that satellite technologies play in
the nation’s economy and national security.

Approximately 200 people are expected to attend the event. Attendees will have a diversity
of views or interests and will include personnel from other federal agencies, members of
the legislative branch, and representatives from industry. The estimated value of the event,
including all food and beverages, is approximately $185 per person. Attendance at this
event will allow NASA attendees to exchange information regarding various NASA
programs. I find that the event meets the requirements of a “widely attended gathering” as
defined in 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(g)(2).

I further determine that there is an Agency interest in having NASA personnel attend the
event because it will provide an opportunity for the invited persons to exchange ideas and
views pertaining to NASA’s policies, programs and operations. NASA employees —
including NASA employees in non-career positions who are required to sign an ethics
pledge under Executive Order 13989 — who do not have a significant role in a matter
affecting the interests of SIA may accept an invitation for free attendance to the event. In
those circumstances, I find that the Agency’s interest in attendance outweighs any concern

that the individual may be, or may appear to be, improperly influenced in the performance
of their duties.

However, NASA employees who have a significant role in any pending matter affecting
the interests of the sponsor, such as procurement duties, program management, or
negotiating or administering a Space Act Agreement, should seek a separate determination
from their local ethics counselor as to whether they may accept the invitation.

Adam F. Greenstone
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.48

                          IDENIX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

                              Relocation Adjustment

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

Employment agreements between Idenix and each of David Arkowitz and Guy
Macdonald include relocation provisions - such provisions currently provide for:

      -     Reimbursement of reasonable moving and relocation expenses (not to
            exceed $25,000)

      -     Reimbursement of real estate commissions (not to exceed 6%) and
            conveyancing fees

      -     Two househunting trips for family

      -     Temporary housing - for period of 90 days after employment
            commencement

      -     Amounts required to gross up such payments to offset additional
            income tax liabilities

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

Amendment:

      (a)   increases reimbursement for moving and relocation expenses from
            $25,000 to (i) $85,000 for David Arkowitz; and (ii) $75,000 for Guy
            Macdonald; and

      (b)   covers commutation to and from principal residences in New
            Jersey/Pennsylvania respectively and Idenix offices prior to
            relocation of principal residence to Cambridge, Massachusetts

Other terms of relocation provision remain in effect without change.

Gross up for additional tax liabilities is applicable - aggregate grossed up
amount (including benefit payment) is estimated to be a maximum of $145,000 for
David Arkowitz and $129,000 for Guy Macdonald(1)

--------

(1)   Exact amount to be computed after assessment of deductible expenses and
      appropriate tax rate is determined.
Ex-99.3 a)

March 25, 2002


STRUCTURED ASSET MORTGAGE INVESTMENT
SANDRA TAVEGIA
C/O WELLS FARGO BANK MN, NA
11000 BROKEN LAND PARKWAY
COLUMBIA, MD 21044



RE:  OFFICERS STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
     YEAR ENDING 2001
     SERVICING AGREEMENT/POOL # 300690000000


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

Please find below our annual Officers Statement of Compliance for the year
ending 2001 with respect to the mortgage loans serviced by GMAC Mortgage
Corporation ("GMACM") for your institution.

1.   A  review  of the  activities  of the  Seller  /  Servicer  during  the
     preceding  calendar  year  and of performance  according  to the  Seller /
     Servicer  contract  has been  made  with the  undersigned  Officer's
     supervision, and
2.   To the best of the undersigned Officer's knowledge, based on such review,
     the Seller / Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Guides
     for such year, or if there has been a default in the fulfillment of any
     such obligation, such default is listed below, and
3.   If applicable, GMACM has filed the information returns with respect to the
     receipt of mortgage interest pursuant to Sections 6050H, 6050J and 6050P of
     the Code, received in a trade or business, reports of foreclosures and
     abandonment's of any Mortgaged Property and the information returns
     relating to cancellation of indebtedness income with respect to any
     Mortgaged Property.

     Known Default           Status            Steps Being Taken to Cure Default
     -------------           ------            ---------------------------------

     (None)


Servicer:     GMAC Mortgage Corporation
              -------------------------

By:           /s/ Michael Kacergis
              --------------------

Name:         Michael Kacergis
              ----------------

Title:        Assistant Vice President
              ------------------------

Date:         March 25, 2002
              --------------
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

             CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

            Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Books-A-Million, Inc.
(the "Company") hereby certifies, to the best of such officer's knowledge, that:

            (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company
      for the quarterly period ended May 1, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

      Dated: April 28, 2005                 /s/ Sandra B. Cochran
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Sandra B. Cochran
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 0 2

- 00 521

- CR

Patricia Sue Leverett , Appellant

v.
The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 42780 , HONORABLE C. W. DUNCAN, JR. , JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Appellant Patricia Sue Leverett pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation and was placed on
deferred adjudication community supervision. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 30.02 (West 2003). After
appellant pleaded true to a llegations in the State =

s motion to adjudicate, the district court revoked
supervision, adjudicated her guilty, and imposed a sentence of five years in prison.

Appellant = s court

- appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and
without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by
presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be

advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State , 485 S.W.2d
553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). A copy of2

counsel = s brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of her right to examine the appellate

record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel = s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and
without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably suppor t the appeal. Counsel =

s motion to
withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

__________________________________________ David Puryear, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Pur year

Affirmed
Filed: April 10, 2003

Do Not Publish
1 min read

# The Historic X-1E Looks Forward

### NASA

Aug 23, 2022

Image Article

            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   

The supersonic X-1E research aircraft was the last of NASA’s experimental X-1 series of aircraft. From 1955-1958, it made 26 flights and one captive flight (attached to a carrier aircraft). Research flights took place over what is now NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center in Edwards, California.

In this photo from November 2021, the X-1E looks toward the full Moon.
## Leslie M. Jones

Leslie Jones



Adapted from an 11 December 1979 Memorial by Margaret Fillion,
Academic Secretary of the Aerospace Engineering Department,
University of Michigan



Prof. Leslie M. Jones, a member of the University of Michigan faculty for 32 years, died of leukemia on October 13, 1979, at the age of 61.

Les first came to Ann Arbor in 1937 as a freshman and received a B.S. in Engineering Physics in 1940.  He served as an electronics engineer in industry until 1947, when he joined the Aeronautical Engineering Department at the University of Michigan in order to participate in one of the pioneering programs of upper atmosphere research.  Experiments prepared by Les and his colleagues were originally carried aloft on captured German V-2 rockets launched from White Sands Proving Grounds.

Leslie Jones and William Hansem check a rocket

Les, as Director of the High Altitude Engineering Laboratory, and his colleagues made many contributions to the fledgling U.S. space program.  In addition to designing scientific payloads and launching them from sites all over the world, they adapted  surplus military rockets for use as scientific sounding rockets.  Their most popular design was the solid-propellant, two-stage, Nike-Cajun, which was used throughout the world during the 1957-58 International Geophysical Year.  A Nike-Cajun has been displayed at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington.  Over the years, Les and his group instrumented more than 150 sounding rockets and 8 scientific balloons, and had experiments on 2 satellites.  They also constructed some 50 sounding rockets for their own use and for colleagues at other institutions.

In the early 1950s, Les and his colleagues instituted a course in upper atmosphere physics in the Aeronautical Engineering Department.  In 1963, Les received an appointment as full professor and started three additional courses.  These courses, together with others developed by his colleagues, formed the basis for the graduate degree program in Aeronomy and Planetary Atmospheres, which Les chaired for five years until it was absorbed by the new Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences.  He had an extensive list of scientific publications and was a member of several scientific societies.  For many years, Les was also a member of the U.S. Rocket and Satellite Research Panel.  This group was instrumental in persuading President Eisenhower to establish a civilian space agency.

In later years, Les devoted much of his time to teaching and to College administration, relinquishing leadership of the High Altitude Engineering Laboratory in 1968 and serving as Associate Dean of the College of Engineering.

Les is survived by his wife Anne and three sons; by his mother (since deceased), sister, and two brothers; and by numerous nieces, nephews, and grandsons.  Les made many lasting friendships with people who developed great respect and affection for him.  Those of us who were his colleagues and friends will remember him as a warm person with a delightful sense of humor, and as a person who was totally dedicated to the College and to the University.