alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-4.2



 Exhibit 4.2 

AMARIN CORPORATION PLC 

AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO 
 2011
STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 
 The Amarin Corporation plc 2011 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended by the Board of Directors and
shareholders of Amarin Corporation plc as follows: 
 Section 7(a) of the Plan is hereby amended, such that Section 7(a) of the Plan, as so
amended, shall read in its entirety as follows: 
 Section 7. Change of Control 

(a) Each of the following events shall constitute a “Change of Control” for purposes of the Plan: 

(i) any person or company (either alone or together with any person or company acting in concert with him or it) (an “Acquiring Company”)) obtaining
Control of the Company, 
 (ii) any person or company that Controls the Company becoming bound or entitled to acquire Shares under sections 974 to 991 of
the UK Companies Act 2006, 
 (iii) any court sanctioning a compromise or arrangement under section 899 of the UK Companies Act 2006, 

(iv) a resolution being tabled for the voluntary winding-up of the Company, 

(v) any Acquiring Company acquiring all or substantially all of the assets of the Company, 

(vii) any merger, reorganization, consolidation or other similar transaction pursuant to which the holders of the Company’s outstanding voting power and
outstanding stock immediately prior to such transaction do not own a majority of the outstanding voting power and outstanding stock or other equity interests of the Company or any resulting or successor entity (or its ultimate parent, if applicable)
immediately upon completion of such transaction, 
 (viii) the sale of all of the Shares of the Company to an unrelated person, entity or group thereof
acting in concert, and 
 (ix) any other similar transaction which the Board determines should constitute a Change of Control for the purposes of the Plan.

 ADOPTED BY BOARD OF DIRECTORS: July 6, 2015
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

NO. DA 21

- 0 56 4

STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

KASEY N HUGS
, Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good
cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to
and including June 16 , 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s
opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 10 2023

05/10/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0564
#### Todd ROBERTS, for Southbay Boat Yard, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Paul F. KENT, for Lion of Judah, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 06-56807.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 17, 2007 *.

Filed Dec. 21, 2007.

Ellen Gross Miles, Esq., San Diego Unified District, San Diego, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Paul F. Kent, Chula Vista, CA, pro se.

Before: GOODWIN, REINHARDT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

In light of appellant’s payment of the docketing fee, the motion to file the opening brief as served is granted. The Clerk shall file the opening brief received March 27, 2007, the answering brief received April 24, 2007, and the reply brief received May 24, 2007.

A review of the record, the response to the court’s August 27, 2007 order to show cause, and the opening and answering briefs indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).

Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 21

- 00584

- CV

In re Mark Joseph Watson©, ens legis

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM HAYS COUNTY

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

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P . 52.8(a).

R e lator ’ s motion for judicial notice is also denied.

_______________________ ___________________

Gisela D. Tri ana , Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Kelly

Filed: November 18 , 2021
Exhibit 32.2



Certification by Robert E. Drury 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 filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Year Ended December 31, 2004 (the Report) by eMerge Interactive,
Inc. (Registrant), the undersigned hereby certifies that:



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 Registrant.



/s/    ROBERT E. DRURYRobert E. DruryExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)March 24, 2005
Exhibit 4.2
 COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO. CONSOLIDATED
 OFFICERS CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
SECTIONS 102 AND 301 OF INDENTURE
 April 7, 2009
 Indenture Company
 (a)
    
    Title: 7.00% Senior Notes Due 2019;(b)
    
    Aggregate Principal Amount: $110,000,000;(c)
    
    Principal Payment Date: April 15, 2019;(d)
    
    Interest Rate: 7.00% per annum;(e)
    
    Interest Payment Dates: April 15 and October 15, commencing October
15, 2009;(f)
    
    Regular Record Dates: The April 1 and October 1 (whether or not a
Business Day) preceding each Interest Payment Date;(g)
    
    Interest Accrual Date: April 7, 2009;(h)
    
    Place of Payment: Corporate trust office or agency of The Bank of New
York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. or other Paying Agent or Agents, as designated by the
Company from time to time, which shall be open for business on each day that is a
Business Day in the City of New York, New York;(i)
    
    Paying Agent: The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A.;(j)
    
    Redemption: Redeemable at any time, at the option of the Company, in
whole or in part, at the redemption prices, and in accordance with the terms and
conditions, described in the Companys Prospectus Supplement dated April 2, 2009 under
the heading Optional Redemption;(k)
    
    Change of Control: The Company will be required to offer to repurchase
the Senior Notes upon the occurrence of certain change of control triggering events,




---



##### 



at such price and in accordance with the terms and conditions as described in the
Global Security delivered to the Trustee;
 (l)
    
    Denominations: $1,000 and integral multiples of $1,000 in excess
thereof;(m)
    
    Global Securities: The Senior Notes shall be represented by a single
Global Security as provided for in the Indenture;(n)
    
    Depositary: The Depository Trust Company;(o)
    
    Defeasance Provisions: Section 1302 and Section 1303 of the Indenture
will be applicable to the Senior Notes; and(p)
    
    Other Terms: None.
    2




---



##### 



/s/ James E. HarrisJames E. HarrisSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer/s/ Clifford M. Deal, IIIClifford M. Deal, IIIVice President and Treasurer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

TINA DEES, o/b/o I.M.R., * 

Plaintiff, *

*

vs. * CIVIL ACTION 08-00667-KD-B

*

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, *

Commissioner of Social Security, *

Defendant. *

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues

raised, and there having been no objections filed, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and dated January 8, 2010, is hereby ADOPTED as the opinion of

this Court.

DONE and ORDERED this the 28th day of January, 2010.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-00667-KD-B Document 23 Filed 01/29/10 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.1


 


*** Text Omitted and Filed Separately


Confidential Treatment Requested


Under 17 C.F.R. §§ 200.80(b)(4)


and 240.24b-2


 


SECOND AMENDMENT TO EXCLUSIVE LICENSE
AGREEMENT


 


THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO
EXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of June 10, 2015 (“Amendment Date”),
by and between CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, a California nonprofit public
benefit corporation (“CSMC”), and CAPRICOR, INC., a Delaware
corporation (“Licensee”), under the following circumstances:


 


		A.	CSMC and Licensee entered into an Exclusive License Agreement
dated May 5, 2014, as amended by the First Amendment dated February 27, 2015 (the “License Agreement”).



 


		B.	The parties desire to amend the License Agreement as
further described herein.



 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein and in the License Agreement and for other good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:


 


1.          Defined
Terms. Terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the License Agreement.


 


2.          Amendment
to the License Agreement. The following technology is hereby added to Revised Schedule A (Patent Rights) to the License
Agreement:  


 


7.       


[...***...]


 


3.          Other
Provisions. This Amendment is a revision to the License Agreement only, it is not a novation thereof. Except as otherwise
provided herein, the terms and conditions of the License Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 


4.          Further
Assurances. Each of the parties hereto shall execute such further documents and instruments, and do all such further
acts, as may be necessary or required in order to effectuate the intent and accomplish the purposes of this Amendment.


 


5.          Counterparts.
This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which taken
together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 





 


* Confidential Treatment Requested


 




      


     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed
this Second Amendment to Exclusive License Agreement as of the day and year first above written.


 


	Dated:	June 10, 2015	 	CAPRICOR, INC.
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	By: 	/s/ Karen Krasney
	 	 	 	 	Name: Karen Krasney
	 	 	 	 	Title:   EVP, General Counsel
	 	 	 	 	 
	Dated:	June 10, 2015	 	CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	By:	/s/ James D. Laur, Esq.
	 	 	 	 	Name: James D. Laur, Esq.
	 	 	 	 	Title:   Vice President, Legal & Technology Affairs
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	By:	/s/ Edward M. Prunchunas
	 	 	 	 	Name: Edward M. Prunchunas
	 	 	 	 	Title:   Senior Vice President, Finance & Business Affairs & Chief Financial Officer


 




    	 	2
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**

 

 

The Board of Directors

E-centives, Inc.:

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-69276 and333-58244) on Form S-8 and the registration statement (No. 333-73900) on FormS-3 of E-centives, Inc. of our reports dated March 27, 2003, with respect tothe consolidated balance sheets of E-centives, Inc. and subsidiary as ofDecember 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated statements ofoperations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive loss, and cash flows foreach of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002, and therelated financial statement schedule, which reports appear in the December 31,2002 annual report on Form 10-K of E-centives, Inc.

 

Our reports dated March 27,2003, contain an explanatory paragraph that states that effective January 1,2002, the Company adopted the provisions of Statement of Financial AccountingStandards No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangibles,” .

 

 

/s/ KPMG LLPMcLean, VAMarch 27, 2003

 

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeffrey Rumsey, Appellant.

[963 NYS2d 909]

*1449Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Joseph W. Latham, J.), rendered March 3, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree and driving while intoxicated.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [3] [a] [in]) and driving while intoxicated (§ 1192 [3]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, we conclude that his responses during the plea colloquy and his execution of a written waiver of the right to appeal establish that he intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily waived his right to appeal *(see People v Kulyeshie,*71 AD3d 1478, 1478-1479 [2010], *lv denied*14 NY3d 889 [2010]; *People v Griner,*50 AD3d 1557, 1558 [2008], *lv denied*11 NY3d 737 [2008]; *see generally People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). Defendant’s contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel does not survive his plea or his valid waiver of the right to appeal because he “failed to demonstrate that ‘the plea bargaining process was infected by [the] allegedly ineffective assistance or that defendant entered the plea because of his attorney[’s] allegedly poor performance’ ” *(People v Wright,*66 AD3d 1334 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 912 [2009]; *see People v Rizek*[appeal No. 1], 64 AD3d 1180, 1180 [2009], *lv denied*13 NY3d 862 [2009]).

Present—Smith, J.P, Peradotto, Lindley, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.
EX-10.5



 Exhibit 10.5 

AMENDATORY AGREEMENT 

TO CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT 

This AMENDATORY AGREEMENT (the “Amendatory Agreement”) is made and entered into as of the 7th day of August, 2015 by and among Lakeland Bancorp, Inc. (“Bancorp”), Lakeland Bank (the “Bank” and, collectively with Bancorp, the “Company”) and David S. Yanagisawa
(the “Executive”). 
 WITNESSETH: 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive entered into a certain Change in Control Agreement, dated as of November 24, 2008, which
Agreement has been amended from time to time thereafter (as amended, the “Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Agreement
provides for certain terms and conditions of the Executive’s employment in the event of a “Change in Control” (as defined therein); and 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Agreement to clarify certain terms of the severance to be paid thereunder;
and 
 WHEREAS, Section 17 of the Agreement permits the Agreement to be amended by a writing executed by the parties thereto;

 NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and the Executive hereby agree that, effective as of the date first above written, Section 9 of
the Agreement (“Termination Without Cause or Resignation for Good Reason”) is hereby amended by adding the following at the thereof: 

“For purposes of the foregoing, the Executive’s salary and cash bonus shall be determined without regard to any reductions to such
amounts made at the election of the Executive, including without limitation, reductions pursuant to any deferral election under a 401(k) plan or deferred compensation plan or arrangement or contributions made under a “cafeteria plan”
within the meaning of Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.” 
 Except as specifically provided herein to
the contrary, the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 
 [Signature Page Follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendatory Agreement to be executed and
the Executive has hereunto set his hand, all as of the date first above written. 
  

							
	 	 	 	  	EXECUTIVE:
			
		 		  	 /s/ David S. Yanagisawa

		 		  	David S. Yanagisawa
				
	 WITNESS:
	 		  		 	
				
	  
	 		  		 	
			
	 	 	 	  	LAKELAND BANCORP, INC.
				
		 		  	By:	 	 /s/ Thomas J. Shara

		 		  		 	     Thomas J. Shara, President and CEO
				
	 WITNESS:
	 		  		 	
				
	  
	 		  		 	
			
	 	 	 	  	LAKELAND BANK
				
		 		  	By:	 	 /s/ Thomas J. Shara

		 		  		 	     Thomas J. Shara, President and CEO
				
	 WITNESS:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JOSEPH MCCORMICK

,

Appellant

,

v

.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

Stat e. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 8

- 00 0 73

- C R

Appeal from the

143 rd District Court

of Reeves C ounty, Texas

(TC# 17

- 01

- 08135

- CRR )

O R D E R

The Court received and filed the supplemental reporter’s record as requested in its order

issued November 29, 2 018

. The appeal is therefore reinstated, and the Appellant’s brief is now

due January 30 , 2019

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 3 1 st day of December , 201 8

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Angela Hernandez, Appellant.

[967 NYS2d 648]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jill Konviser, J.), rendered December 7, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of forgery in the second degree and criminal possession of forged instrument in the second degree, and sentencing her, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant objected to the relevance of an uncharged crime on significantly different grounds from those raised on appeal, her present claim is unpreserved *(see e.g. People v Kelly,*82 AD3d 508, 509 [1st Dept 2011], *lv denied*16 NY3d 896 [2011]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits, and we also find that the court properly exercised its discretion in receiving this evidence, because its probative value outweighed its potential for prejudice. Given the defense theory that defendant wrote out a check from her victim’s account believing that she had permission to spend his money without his prior consent, the evidence of defendant’s prior act of forgery was probative of her intent and absence of mistake *(see People v Alvino,*71 NY2d 233, 242 [1987]). The court minimized the potential prejudice by limiting the amount of evidence that could be introduced and by way of suitable limiting instructions *(see People v Versage,*48 AD3d 254, 255 [1st Dept 2008], *lv denied*10 NY3d 871 [2008]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.
smsaball10qex103063015.htm


Exhibit 10.3


 


SNOTARATOR, LLC


2591 Dallas Parkway, Suite 102


Frisco, Texas 75034







May 15, 2015


 







 







 


SMSA Ballinger Acquisition Corp.


2591 Dallas Parkway, Suite 102


Frisco, Texas 75034








	
  

	
Re:

	
Extension of Termination Date












Dear Madam or Sir:


 


Please be advised that the purpose of this letter is to evidence the willingness of the undersigned to extend the term of that certain Distributor Agreement, dated August 1, 2013, by and between the undersigned and SMSA Ballinger Acquisition Corp. (the “Agreement”), to May 15, 2017. Except as to the extension of the term of the Agreement, this letter shall not be deemed a modification of any other term or provision of the Agreement.







Please acknowledge your agreement with and understanding of the forgoing by executing this letter in the space below.


 


 



	 	

Regards,







/s/ Orsolya Peresztegi







Orsolya Peresztegi. President







 


 







 



	 	

ACKNOWKEDGED AND ACCEPTED this 15th day of 


May 2015 by SMSA Ballinger Acquisition Corp:


 


 


 


 


 




By: /s/ Orsolya Peresztegi, President
#### In the Matter of Eddie Ortiz, Petitioner, v Charles Kelly, Jr., Superintendent, Marcy Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

[974 NYS2d 863]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order and judgment of the Supreme Court, Oneida County [Bernadette T. Clark, J.], entered February 7, 2013) to review a determination finding after a tier II hearing that petitioner had violated an inmate rule.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal insofar as it concerns the declaratory judgment action is unanimously dismissed, the determination is confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action, seeking to challenge the determination, following a tier II disciplinary hearing, that he violated inmate rule 106.10 *(see*7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [7] [i] [refusal to obey orders]). Supreme Court sua sponte dismissed the declaratory judgment causes of action in the complaint and transferred the CPLR article 78 proceeding to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g), to review a question of substantial evidence.

We note at the outset that the appeal must be dismissed insofar as it concerns the court’s sua sponte dismissal of the declaratory judgment causes of action *(see Mohler v Nardone,*53 AD3d 600, 600 [2008]). No appeal lies as of right “from an ex parte order, including an order entered sua sponte” *(Sholes v Meagher,*100 NY2d 333, 335 [2003]; *see Obot v Medaille Coll.,*82 AD3d 1629, 1630 [2011], *appeal dismissed*17 NY3d 756 [2011]), and permission to appeal has not been granted *(see*CPLR 5701 [c]).

Contrary to petitioner’s contention with respect to the CPLR article 78 proceeding, the determination is supported by substantial evidence. We reject petitioner’s contention that the *1412Hearing Officer erred in refusing to permit him to present evidence concerning his allegedly valid excuse for failing to obey the correction officer’s order. The reason for the order is “irrelevant to the issue of his guilt or innocence” *(Matter of Washington v Napoli,*73 AD3d 1300, 1300 [2010]). Indeed, “ ‘[t]he risks inescapably attendant on the refusal of an inmate to carry out even an illegal order of a correction officer are such as to require compliance at the time’ ” the order is given *(Matter of Roman v Coughlin,*202 AD2d 1000, 1001 [1994], quoting *Matter of Rivera v Smith,*63 NY2d 501, 515 [1984]; *see Matter of Hogan v Fischer,*90 AD3d 1544, 1545 [2011], *lv denied*19 NY3d 801 [2012]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions with respect to the CPLR article 78 proceeding, and we conclude that they are without merit. Present — Smith, J.P, Centra, Fahey, Garni and Whalen, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and in connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) of Cytomedix, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 (the Report), I, Andrew S. Maslan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief: 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 for said period. Date: October 16, 2012  /s/ Andrew S. MaslanAndrew S. Maslan Chief Financial Officer
 A signed original of this written statement has been provided to Cytomedix, Inc. and will be retained by Cytomedix, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.