alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1971

1Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162 (1875), a challenge under the

privileges of immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 2 E. FLEXNER, CENTURY OF STRUGGLE—THE WOMAN’S RIGHTS MOVEMENT IN

THE UNITED STATES (1959). 3State v. Mittle, 120 S.C. 526 (1922), writ of error dismissed, 260 U.S. 705

(1922); Graves v. Eubank, 205 Ala. 174 (1921); In re Cavelier, 287 N.Y.S. 739

(1936).

WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE RIGHTS

NINETEENTH AMENDMENT

SECTION 1. The right of the citizens of the United States

to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or

by any State on account of sex.

SECTION 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE

The Amendment was adopted after a long campaign by its advocates who had largely despaired of attaining their goal through

modification of individual state laws. Agitation in behalf of women’s suffrage was recorded as early as the Jackson Administration

but the initial results were meager. Beginning in 1838, Kentucky

authorized women to vote in school elections and its action was

later copied by a number of other States. Kansas in 1887 granted

women unlimited rights to vote in municipal elections. Not until

1869, however, when the Wyoming Territory accorded women suffrage rights on an equal basis with men and continued the practice

following admission to statehood, did these advocates register a notable victory. Progress continued to be discouraging, only ten additional States having joined Wyoming by 1914, and, judicial efforts

having failed, 1 and a vigorous campaign brought congressional passage of a proposed Amendment and the necessary state ratifications. 2

Following the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fifteenth

Amendment, the state courts which passed on the effect of the

Amendment ruled that it did not confer upon women the right to

vote but only the right not to be discriminated against on the basis

of their sex in the setting of voting qualifications, 3 a formalistic

distinction to be sure but one which has restrained the possible applications of the Amendment. In only one case has the Supreme
1972 AMENDMENT 19—WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE RIGHTS

4 Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 227, 283–84 (1937).

Court itself dealt with the Amendment’s effect, holding that a

Georgia poll tax statute which exempted from payment women who

did not register to vote did not discriminate in any manner against

the right of men to vote, although it did note that the Amendment

‘‘applies to men and women alike and by its own force supersedes

inconsistent measures, whether federal or State.’’ 4
Form of Series 11 Preferred Stock Certificate


 Exhibit 4.3 

 

					
	Number P11-        	 	CELL THERAPEUTICS, INC.	 	*                          
          * Shares
		 	A Washington Corporation	 	Series 11 Preferred Stock

 THIS CERTIFIES THAT *                           
                                         
                                         
                                         
                      * is the record holder of
*                                        
                                         
                           
(                                         
       )* shares of Series 11 Preferred Stock of Cell Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Corporation”) transferable only on the share register of the Corporation by the holder,
in person or by such holder’s duly authorized attorney, upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed or assigned. 

This certificate and the shares represented hereby shall be held subject to all of the provisions of the Amended and Restated Articles of
Incorporation and the Second Amended and Restated Bylaws of the Corporation and any amendments thereto, a copy of each of which is on file at the office of the Corporation and made a part hereof as fully as though the provisions of said Amended and
Restated Articles of Incorporation and Second Amended and Restated Bylaws were imprinted in full on this Certificate, to all of which the holder of this Certificate, by acceptance hereof, assents and agrees to be bound. 

The shares represented by this Certificate are convertible into shares of Common Stock as set forth in the Amended and Restated Articles
of Incorporation of the Corporation. 
 The Corporation will furnish without charge to each shareholder who so requests, the
powers, designations, preferences and relative, participating, optional or other special rights of each class of stock or series thereof and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions of such preferences or rights. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers this
     day of         , 2011. 
  

					
	  
 James A. Bianco, Chief
Executive Officer
	 		 	  
 Louis A. Bianco,
Executive Vice President, Finance and
 Administration








 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY SELLS, ASSIGNS AND TRANSFERS UNTO
                                         
                                         
              
                                         
                                SHARES REPRESENTED BY THE WITHIN CERTIFICATE AND DOES
HEREBY IRREVOCABLY CONSTITUTE AND APPOINT                              ATTORNEY TO TRANSFER THE SAID
SHARES ON THE SHARE REGISTER OF THE WITHIN NAMED CORPORATION WITH FULL POWER OF SUBSTITUTION IN THE PREMISES. 
 DATED
                     
  

	
	  
 (Signature)



 NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE ON THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH
THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THIS CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.
#### Walter A. LUTZ, Plaintiff, v. SECURITY-FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LOS ANGELES, etc., et al., Defendants.

No. 747-57-PH.

United States District Court S. D. California, Central Division.

Sept. 22, 1958.

*333Enright & Elliott, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff.

Lawler, Felix & Hall, Los Angeles, Cal., for Mae Sheldon and Security-First Nat. Bank.

Hill, Farrer & Burrill, Los Angeles, Cal., for Flamingo Trailers.

HALL, District Judge.

The Motions of all defendants to strike the Amended Complaint, and the Motion of Flamingo to dismiss are denied.

In Conley v. Gibons, 1957, 355 U.S. 41, at page 45, 78 S.Ct. 99, at page 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80, the Supreme Court stated:

> “ * * * that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears *beyond doubt*that the plaintiff can prove *no*set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”

While this statement opens a Pandora’s box so far as pleading i§, concerned, and in the judgment of the undersigned will proliferate unintelligible pleadings and prolong litigation, rather than shorten it, I feel bound by it in this case both as to the Motions to strike and dismiss.
---

|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 Quarterly Report of Braintech, Inc. (the
"Company ") on Form 10-QSB for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Edward A. White, the Principal Financial and Accounting 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 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/ Edward A.
      White                          | 
|-------------------------------------------------- | 
|Edward A. White                                    | 
|Principal Financial Officer and Accounting Officer | 
|Date: November 13, 2007                            | 

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            MAY-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         15,431
<SECURITIES>                                   38,276
<RECEIVABLES>                                  21,340
<ALLOWANCES>                                    1,703
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               74,076
<PP&E>                                         16,002
<DEPRECIATION>                                  6,164
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                119,132
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          10,132
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          289
<OTHER-SE>                                     94,051
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  119,132
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               12,083
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  10,939
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                7,971
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (347)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (6,482)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (6,482)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (6,482)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.22)


</TABLE>
H. R. 3004 

One Hundred Twelfth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twelve 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 260 California 

Drive in Yountville, California, as the ‘‘Private First Class Alejandro R. Ruiz 

Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. PRIVATE FIRST CLASS ALEJANDRO R. RUIZ POST OFFICE 

BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 260 California Drive in Yountville, California, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Private First Class Alejandro 

R. Ruiz Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Private First Class Alejandro R. Ruiz Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 44842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20502]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731-TA-539-C (Fourth Review)]


Uranium From Russia; Determination

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
review, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``Commission'') determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the 
Act''), that termination of the suspended investigation covering 
uranium from Russia would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States 
within a reasonably foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 
1675(c)), instituted this review on February 1, 2017 (82 FR 8951) and 
determined on May 8, 2017 that it would conduct an expedited review (82 
FR 27287, June 14, 2017).
    The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) 
of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its 
determination in this review on September 20, 2017. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4727 (September 2017), 
entitled Uranium from Russia: Investigation No. 731-TA-539-C (Fourth 
Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: September 20, 2017.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017-20502 Filed 9-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on 
Forms S-3 No. 333-19695, 333-7861 and 333-45759 and Forms S-8 No. 33-61704, 
33-61708, 33-68046, pertaining to the Protein Polymer Technologies, Inc. 1992 
Stock Option Plan, 1989 Stock Option Plan, and Options Subject to Individual 
Option Agreements of our report dated January 30, 1998 (except Note 9, as to 
which the date is April 13, 1998) with respect to the financial statements of 
Protein Polymer Technologies, Inc., included in the Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) 
for the year ended December 31, 1997.


                                       /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

                                       ERNST & YOUNG LLP

San Diego, California
April 13, 1998
exv10w15wa






Exhibit 10.15(a)




MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING




     THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING(“Agreement”) is made as of the 30th day of June, 2006, by and
between Jack in the Box Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Gary J. Beisler
(“Executive”) in connection with clarifying certain rights and obligations owed to Executive by the
Company.



     1. EMPLOYMENT. The Company hereby agrees that the intent in connection with certain
employment benefits was to treat Executive similarly to other Qdoba employees. Qdoba employees were
credited with their original Qdoba hire date for purposes of Jack in the Box deferred compensation
arrangements and, similarly, Executive will be treated so that he will receive any benefits he
would be entitled to receive under the SERP based on an employment date of April 17, 1998.
Similarly, in the event Executive is separated from the Company for any reason before he is fully
vested under the Executive Deferred Compensation Plan (“EDCP”), Company agrees that Executive will
receive an amount equal to the value of matching funds that he would have received based on an
employment date of April 17, 1998.



     2. MODIFICATIONS.
Company shall have the right to honor its obligations under this Agreement
under the terms of its compensation plans or outside the plans, at its option.



     3. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement is the entire agreement and understanding of the
parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any and all prior and
contemporaneous negotiations, understandings and agreements with regard to the subject matter
hereof, whether oral or written. No representation, inducement, agreement, promise or understanding
altering, modifying, taking from or adding to the terms and conditions hereof shall have any force
or effect unless the same is in writing and validly executed by the parties hereto or part of a
formal benefit plan.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first
above written.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	 	 	JACK IN THE BOX INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/S/
CARLO CETTI	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Name:	 	Carlo Cetti	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
	 	Sr. VP, Human Resources & Strategic Planning	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	EXECUTIVE	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	/S/ GARY J. BEISLER	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Gary J. Beisler
**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 Braintech, Inc. (the "Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Owen L.J. Jones the Principal Executive 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 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/  Owen L.J. Jones                    

Owen L.J. Jones

Principal Executive Officer 

November 14, 2006
#### Jennifer DIEPENHORST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF BATTLE CREEK, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-1603.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 23, 2008.

Before: NORRIS, BATCHELDER, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant Jennifer Diepenhorst, a former employee of the Battle Creek Police Department, sued defendants-appellees City of Battle Creek and Sergeant Bruce Penning, an officer in the Department, asserting federal and state employment discrimination claims. The district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. On appeal, Diepenhorst argues that her Title VII claim is not time barred because she timely filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within the required 300-day period. She also contends that factual issues exist with respect to her Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act claims for sexual harassment and hostile work environment.

Having reviewed the parties’ briefs and the applicable law and having had the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that a panel opinion further addressing the issues *413raised would serve no jurisprudential purpose. Therefore, on the grounds identified by the district court, we affirm the district court’s judgment in favor of the City of Battle Creek and Sergeant Bruce Penning.
Exhibit 10.25



 Exhibit 10.25 
 CHESAPEAKE LODGING TRUST 
 Trustee Compensation Policy

 Commencing with the 2011 annual meeting of shareholders, the non-officer trustees of Chesapeake Lodging Trust (the
“Trust”) shall be paid an annual retainer fee of $60,000, payable quarterly. In addition, the audit committee chairman will be paid an additional annual retainer of $15,000, the compensation committee chairman will be paid an
additional annual retainer of $10,000 and the nominating and corporate governance committee chairman will be paid an additional annual retainer of $7,500, in each case payable quarterly. The non-executive Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the
Trust will be paid an additional annual retainer of $20,000. Although the Trust will reimburse the trustees for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with performance of their duties as trustees, including, without limitation,
travel expenses in connection with their attendance at board and committee meetings, the Trust will not pay any trustee a separate fee for meetings attended. Furthermore, trustees will not receive any perquisites. 

The non-officer trustees may elect to receive their annual retainers and chair committee fees in whole or in part in the form of cash or immediately
vested common shares of beneficial interest of the Trust (“Common Shares”) based on the closing market price of the Common Shares on the grant date. 
 In connection with each annual meeting of shareholders, each of the Trust’s non-officer trustees will receive a grant of 1,000 restricted Common Shares, except that the non-executive Chairman of the
Board of Trustees will receive a grant of 1,500 Common Shares in recognition of his or her expanded responsibilities in such capacity. A similar grant of 1,000 restricted Common Shares will be made to each new member of the Board of Trustees upon
his or her appointment or election to serve in such capacity. Vesting for all grants will occur on the date of the next annual meeting, with acceleration upon termination due to death, disability or involuntary termination of service as a result of
a change in control. Dividends will be paid on the unvested restricted shares when declared and paid on the Trust’s Common Shares generally.
exhibit_4-7.htm










Exhibit 4.7


 


BENEFICIAL OWNER ELECTION FORM


 


INSTRUCTIONS


 


To [______________]:


 


The undersigned acknowledge(s) receipt of your letter and the enclosed materials referred to therein relating to the offering of ordinary shares, par value NIS 0.1 (the “Ordinary Shares”), of Magal Security Systems Ltd. (the “Company”).


 


With respect to any instructions to exercise (or not to exercise) Subscription Rights, the undersigned acknowledges that this form must be completed and returned such that it will actually be received by you by 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, on [____________], the last business day prior to the scheduled expiration date of the Subscription Rights Offering of [____________].


 


This will instruct you whether to exercise Subscription Rights to purchase Ordinary Shares distributed with respect to the Ordinary Shares held by you for the account of the undersigned, pursuant to the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Prospectus and the related “Instructions as to Use of Subscription Rights Certificates.”


 


Box 1. o  Please DO NOT EXERCISE SUBSCRIPTION RIGHTS for Ordinary Shares.


 


Box 2. o  Please EXERCISE SUBSCRIPTION RIGHTS for Ordinary Shares as set forth below.


 


The number of Subscription Rights for which the undersigned gives instructions for exercise under the Basic Subscription Right should not exceed the number of Subscription Rights that the undersigned is entitled to exercise.


 



	  	
Number of Ordinary Shares

	 	 	 	
Per Share Subscription Price

	 	 	
Payment

	 
	
Basic Subscription Right:

	  	 x	 	$	
          [___]

	 	 	$	
=

	 
	  	  	 	 	 	  	 	 	 	 	 
	
Oversubscription Right:

	  	 x	 	$ 	
          [___]

	 	 	$	
=

	 
	  	  	 	 	 	  	 	 	 	 	 
	
Total Payment Required:

	  	 	 	 	  	 	 	$	 	 










Box 3. o  Payment in the following amount is enclosed $_____________ .


 


Box 4. o  Please deduct payment from the following account maintained by you as follows:


 




	  	  	  	 	  
	  	
Type of Account

	  	Account No.	 
	  	 	  	 	  
	  	Amount to be deducted:	$	 	  
	  Date: 	 	  	 	  
	  	  	  	 	  
	  	  	  	 	  
	 	 	 	 	 
	  	  	  	  

Signature(s)

	 
	  	  	  	 	  
	  	  	  	Please type or print name(s) below
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                      [PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LETTERHEAD]


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Healthcare Recoveries, Inc. (the "Company") on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-41557,
333-41559, and 333-41561) of our report dated February 16, 1999, except for Note
15 as to which the date is March 22, 1999, on our audits of the financial
statements of the Company as of December 31, 1998 and 1997 and for each of the
three years in the period ended December 31, 1998, which report is included in
the Company's 1998 Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

February 16, 1999