alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States Court of Appeals
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

TORRENT PHARMA INC., TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., Defendants

- Appellees

______________________

2023

- 2219

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

District of Delaware in No. 1:19

- cv

- 01979

- RGA, Judge

Richard G. Andrews.

______________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the parties’ joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal of this appeal, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b)(1), ECF No. 1 8

,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

(1) The appeal is voluntarily dismissed. Case: 23-2219 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 09/03/2024NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION v. TORRENT

PHARMA INC

. 2

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

September 3 , 2024

Date F OR THE C OURT

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: September 3, 2024 Case: 23-2219 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 09/03/2024
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/events/2019/08/2019-disaster-resilience-symposium
**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors

Ruby Tuesday, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 33-32697, 333-03165, 33-20585, 333-39321, 333-03157, 002-97170, 033-13593, 33-70490, 333-03153, 033-46218, 33-46220, 33-56452, 333-03155, 333-77965, 333-88879, 333-39231, 333-100738 and 333-122124) on Form S-8 and (Nos. 33-57159 and 333-160216) on Form S-3 of Ruby Tuesday, Inc. of our reports dated August 3, 2009, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Ruby Tuesday, Inc. and subsidiaries as of June 2, 2009 and June 3, 2008, and the related consolidated statements of operations,shareholders' equity and comprehensive (loss) income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended June 2, 2009, and the related financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of June 2, 2009, which reports appear in the June 2, 2009, annual report on Form 10-K of Ruby Tuesday, Inc.  Our report with respect to theconsolidated financial statements refers to a change in the method of accounting for defined benefit pension and other postretirement plans due to the adoption of the measurement date provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 158, *Employer’s Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans – an amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106 and 132 (R)*, in 2009.

 

/s/ KPMG LLP

Louisville, Kentucky

August 3, 2009
#### WESTLAND OIL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUMMIT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Davis Oil Company, Armada Petroleum Corporation, Webb Industries, Inc., Thomas M. Hajecate, and J. E. Fisher, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 5-44.

Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals.

Argued Dec. 6, 1979.

Decided Jan. 22, 1980.

Gerald L. Jones, Houston, Tex., and Charles N. Wooten, Sr., Lafayette, La., were on the brief for appellees (Armada Petroleum Corporation, Webb Industries, Inc., Thomas M. Hajecate and J. E. Fisher).

Morton L. Susman, Susman & Kessler, Houston, Tex., and William Pannill, Pannill & Hooper, Houston, Tex., were on the brief for appellant.

Bruce R. Genderson, Williams & Connolly, Washington, D.C., with whom Robert L. Weinberg and Jerry L. Shulman, Washington, D.C., of the same firm; Allen R. Snyder and Raymond J. Batía, Jr., Hogan & Hartson, Washington, D.C.; and Edward B. McDonough, Jr., Hirtz & McDonough, Houston, Tex., were on the brief for appellees (Summit Transportation Company and Davis Oil Company).

Before INGRAHAM, MORGAN and GEWIN, Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This case was dismissed by the district court on the grounds that plaintiff’s amended complaint, on its face, stated no cause of action arising under the laws of the United States. We affirm the dismissal of this action based on the memorandum and order of the district court dated August 21, 1979. *Westland Oil Development Corporation v. Summit Transportation Co.,*481 F.Supp. 15 (S.D.Tex.1979).

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I,
J. Kimo Esplin, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Huntsman Corporation and Huntsman International LLC;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrants as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrants' other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrants and have:



5.     The
registrants' other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants'
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants' board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
February 22, 2008

| |  |                                                        
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------
| |  |                                                        
| |  | /s/J. KIMO ESPLINJ. Kimo Esplin Chief Financial Officer

---



QuickLinks
#### Mathews *v.*Norman, et al., Administrators.

*Pleading.—Evidence.—Agreement to pay Attorney's*Fees.—Where a promissory note contains an agreement to pay attorney’s fees, such agreement should be alleged in the same paragraph of complaint that asks a recovery on the note; and evidence is admissible in support of such averment.

Agreement to Pay Attorney’s Fees.—An agreement in a promissory note to pay reasonable attorney’s fees if the holder is required to resort to legal proceedings to collect the note, is valid.

APPEAL from the Floyd Common Pleas.

Osborn, C. J.

The appellees in this case sued the appellant upon three promissory notes, executed by him, payable to them as administrators of the estate of John B. Norman, deceased. Each of the notes contained a provision that if it had to be collected by law, the judgment of the court should include a reasonable attorney’s fee for bringing the suit and collecting the amount due. The complaint was in three paragraphs, one upon each note. In each paragraph, there was an allegation of the value of the attorney’s fee, and that the note was due and unpaid.

Separate motions were filed to require a division of each paragraph of the complaint into separate paragraphs; to strike from each paragraph of the complaint all that related to the payment of attorney’s fees. Separate demurrers to the part of each paragraph of the complaint included in the motion to strike out; separate demurrers to the whole of each paragraph of the complaint in the order stated, and overruled. Separate answers of general denial were filed to each paragraph of the complaint. The cause was tried by the court, resulting in a finding for the appellees for the amount of the notes with interest and attorney’s fees. A motion for a new trial was filed and overruled, and final j udgment rendered on the finding. Proper exceptions were taken to the several rulings of the court, and bills of exceptions filed.

There is no error in the record. The agreement to pay attorney’s fees was a part of the contract and cause of action. *177It was not necessary to state it as a separate cause of action. To do so would uselessly add to the record. *Johnson*v. *Crossland,*34 Ind. 334. The allegation was necessary to entitle the appellees to a recovery for it. *Bowser*v. *Palmer,*33 Ind. 124. And evidence was properly admitted in support of the averment. A special demurrer to a part of a complaint will not lie. *Estep*v. *Estep,*23 Ind. 114; *Smith*v. *The Muncie National Bank,*29 Ind. 158; *Voorhees*v. *Hushaw,*30 Ind. 488; *O’Haver*v. *Shidler,*26 Ind. 278.

*G. V. Howk*and *W. W. Tuley,*for appellant.

*M. C. Kerr*and *W. J. Hisey,*for appellees.

An agreement to pay reasonable attorney’s fees, if the holder is required to resort to legal proceedings to collect the note, is valid. *Smith*v. *Silvers,*32 Ind. 321; *Billingsley*v. *Dean,*11 Ind. 331.

The judgment of the said Floyd Common Pleas is affirmed, with costs and five per cent, damages.
EXHIBIT 22

                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant


                                               State or Jurisdiction
         Name                                     of Incorporation
------------------------------                 ----------------------
Milgray/Cleveland, Inc.                           Ohio
Milgray/New England, Inc.                         Massachusetts
Milgray/Delaware Valley, Inc.                     New Jersey
Milgray/Washington, Inc.                          Maryland
Milgray Ltd.                                      New York
Milgray/International, Inc.                       New York
Milgray/New York, Inc.                            New York
Milgray/Florida, Inc.                             Florida
Milgray/Kansas City, Inc.                         Kansas
Birnbach Company, Inc.                            New York
Milgray/Chicago, Inc.                             Illinois
Milgray/Dallas, Inc.                              Texas
Milgray Electronics/P.R., Inc.                    Delaware
Milgray/Utah, Inc.                                Utah
Milgray/California, Inc.                          California
Milgray/New Jersey, Inc.                          New Jersey
Milgray/Toronto, Inc.                             Ontario
Milgray/Houston, Inc.                             Texas
Milgray/Raleigh, Inc.                             North Carolina
Milgray/Orange County, Inc.                       California
Milgray/Northern California, Inc.                 California
Milgray/Upstate New York, Inc.                    New York
Milgray/Atlanta, Inc.                             Georgia
Milgray/Connecticut, Inc.                         Connecticut
Milgray/Indiana, Inc.                             Indiana
Milgray/Colorado, Inc.                            Colorado
Milgray/Huntsville, Inc.                          Alabama
Milgray/San Diego, Inc.                           California
Milgray/Oregon, Inc.                              Oregon
Viewtek, Inc.                                     New York
Milgray/Arizona, Inc.                             Arizona

      All of the outstanding stock of each of the above subsidiaries is wholly
owned by the registrant. Each of the above subsidiaries does business under its
own name and/or as a subsidiary of the registrant.
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of Mason Hill Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Geoffrey Eiten, President 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:

          1.     The Report fully complies with he 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.

     Date:     July  8,  2005

     /s/  Geoffrey  Eiten
     --------------------
     President
#### Helen B. Bates v. Detroit Mutual Benefit Association.

[See ante, p. 426.]

*Mutual benefit associations*— Insurance.

Mandamus does not lie to compel a mutual benefit insurance company to levy an assessment to pay the amount falling due upon the death of a member; the proper course is to bring suit upon the undertaking; of the company.

Motion for order to show cause.

Submitted and denied October 18.

*John Athmson*for the motion.
opxa_ex102.htm


Exhibit 10.2


 



FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT







THIS AMENDMENT (the “First Amendment”) is made effective the 11th day of May, 2015 (the “Effective Date”) by and between Dirk D. Laukien, an Individual (herein referred to as “Lessor”) and Opexa Therapeutics, Inc. (herein referred to as “Lessee”) of the following and conditions, and thus:


 


WITNESSETH







WHEREAS, Lessor, as Lessor therein, and Lessee, as Lessee there in known as Opexa Therapeutics, Inc. (“Lessee”) entered into that certain Lease Agreement (the “Lease”) effective August 19th, 2005 containing 10,000 Square Feet of net rentable area in Suite 100 (the “Leased Premises”) in that certain building known as 2635 Technology Forest Building (the “Building”) located at 2635 Technology Forest, The Woodlands, Texas 77381; and







NOW THEREFORE, Lessor and lessee desire to further amend, modify, and supplement the Lease as hereinafter set forth:








	
1.  

	
Lease renewal for 60 months to be amended to reflect October 1, 2015.








	
2.  

	
Base Rent.   Accordingly, the schedule of Base Rent in Paragraph 1 (h) of the Lease is deleted and replaced with the following:







 



	Rental Period	 	PSF- Rent	 	Monthly Base Rent
	CD to month 36 	 	$20.00/PSF 	 	$16,666.67
	37 to month 48	 	$20.50/PSF 	 	$17,083.33
	49 to month 60	 	$21.00/PSF	 	$17,500.00





 



	
3.  

	
Renewal Option: Landlord to provide Tenant with two (2) 60 month renewal options at the current fair market rate value.  Tenant to provide Landlord with nine (9) months prior written notice to renew.












 EXCEPT as expressly hereby amended, all other terms and conditions of the Lease and Amendment’s remain in full force and effect.







IN WITNESS THEREOF, the undersigned has caused this First Amendment to the Lease to be duly executed effective this 11th day of May 2015.


 



	LESSOR: 	LESSEE:
	

Dirk D. Laukien, an Individual

	Opexa Therapeutics, Inc.
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Dirk D. Laukien 	 	By:	/s/ Neil K. Warma	 
	Name:	Dirk D. Laukien 	Name:	Neil K. Warma	 
	 	 	Title:	President & Chief Executive Officer
9784.

#### Posey *v.*Floyd County.

Decided January 14, 1919.

Action for damages; from city court of Floyd county—Judge Nunnally. March 8, 1918.

*Maddox & Hoyad,*for plaintiff.

*Graham Wright,*for defendant.

Luke, J.

.The conflict in the evidence in this ease made a jury question. A discussion of the evidence is not had here, because of the possibility that it might jeopardize the rights of the parties in another trial of this case. The court erred in directing the verdict and in not submitting the issues, under an appropriate charge, to the jury. See *City , of Rome*v. *Brooks,*7 *Ga. App.*244 (66 S. E. 627).

*Judgment reversed.*

*Wade, C. J., and*Jenkins, *J., concur.*
#### Margaret Gibbons v. John Dunn — Same v. William Dunn — Same v. Michael Dunn.

*Bwrden of proving grcmtor’s incompetency.*

On a bill to set aside a deed for the grantor’s incompetency, the burden of proving incompetency is upon the complainant, whose case fails if the evidence is so evenly balanced as to leave the question in doubt.

Appeals from Wayne.

Submitted Apr. J.

Decided June 8.

*147Bxrls to set aside deeds. Defendants appeal.

Reversed; bills dismissed.

*Moore & Moore*and *Charles M. Swift*for complainant.

*Levi T. Griffin,*(Griffin, *Dickinson, Thurber &*Hosmer) for defendants.

Marston, C. J.

The complainant seeks to have a deed executed by her father in 1869 to the defendant set aside because of the incompetency of the grantor at the time of executing the instrument.

In 1874 complainant’s father conveyed a certain other description of land to another son, William Dunn, and the same year a third piece of land to his son Michael Dunn. Separate bills were filed against each of these parties to have these deeds set aside and for the same reason, and in each case a decree was rendered in favor of complainant, from which appeals were taken by the defendant in each case.

The cases were heard together upon pleadings and proofs. A large number of witnesses were examined in favor of the complainant, and the evidence given by them tended very strongly to show that the grantor, now deceased, was at the time of executing the conveyances in question incompetent and not capable of doing any business. On the part and behalf of defendants a still larger number of witnesses were called who, many of them having had equal opportunities with those called by complainant, agree in saying that at the time these several instruments were executed the grantor was fully capable and competent to do business, and they testify to having seen and had conversations with him, and some of them to doing business with him.

In my opinion the weight of the testimony is in fayor of the grantor’s competency and the validity of the conveyances. The burthen of proving incompetency is upon the complainant, and if the case was left in doubt, she must fail, as conveyances, when made and acted upon, should not be set aside upon slight and uncertain evidence.

*148I am of opinion that the decrees in the court below should be reversed, and a decree entered in each case, dismissing the bill of complaint with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
Exhibit 31.2


Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)

I, Ronald Whitter, certify that:

1.I
    have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Black Warrior Wireline
Corp.;

2.Based
    on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrants other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and
have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures,
  or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
  supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
  including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
  those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report
  is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the
          registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented
          in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
          controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
          report based on such evaluation; and c) disclosed in this report any change
          in the registrants internal control over financial reporting
          that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
          (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
          report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
          affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.


5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants
board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies and
    material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over
    financial reporting which
  are reasonably likely 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 other employees who have a significant role
        in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.




|Date: August 26, 2004 | /s/Ronald
    Whitter                      
|--------------------- | -------------------------------------------
|                      | Ronald Whitter 
    Chief Financial Officer



---
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1722 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 13, 2023 

Received 

AN ACT 

To amend the Grand Ronde Reservation Act, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 1722 RDS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Grand Ronde Reserva3 tion Act Amendment of 2023’’. 

4 SEC. 2. GRAND RONDE RESERVATION ACT AMENDMENT. 

5 Section 1(d) of Public Law 100–425 (commonly 

6 known as the ‘‘Grand Ronde Reservation Act’’; 102 Stat. 

7 1594; 108 Stat. 4566) is amended— 

8 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘lands within 

9 the State of Oregon’’ and inserting ‘‘the 84 acres 

10 known as the Thompson Strip’’; 

11 (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as para12 graph (3); and 

13 (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the fol14 lowing: 

15 ‘‘(2) GAMING PROHIBITION.—Any real property 

16 obtained by the Tribes as part of a land claim settle17 ment approved by the United States, including any 

18 real property purchased with funds granted as part 

19 of any land claim settlement, shall not be eligible, or 

20 used, for any class II gaming or class III gaming 

21 under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 

22 2701 et seq.) (as those terms are defined in section 

23 4 of that Act (25 U.S.C. 2703)).’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

HR 1722 RDS

1 SEC. 3. TREATY RIGHTS OF FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED 

2 TRIBES. 

3 Nothing in this Act, or an amendment made by this 

4 Act, shall be construed to enlarge, confirm, adjudicate, af5 fect, or modify any treaty right of an Indian Tribe (as 

6 defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and 

7 Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)). 

Passed the House of Representatives November 8, 

2023. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### HERRICK HOSPITAL AND HEALTH SYSTEM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tommy G. THOMPSON, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services,* Defendant-Appellee.

No. 99-16971.

D.C. No. CV-98-01691-VRW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Feb. 15, 2001.

Decided May 24, 2001.

Before GOODWIN, HUG, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 Tommy G. Thompson is substituted for his predecessor, Donna E. Shalala, as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

We affirm based upon the well-reasoned decision of the District Court filed on July 21, 1999.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.