alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
10.1


ASSIGNMENT
OF INVENTION AND PATENT APPLICATION


Whereas
I, Christine Ichim, a citizen of the Canada residing in Spring Valley, CA herein referred to as ASSIGNOR, have invented new and
useful innovations described in “TREATMENT OF MYELODYSPLASTIC SYNDROME BY INHIBITION OF NR2F6”, the specification
of which was filed on December 16, 2014 as U.S. Non-Provisional Patent Application No 14/572,574, herein referred to as the Invention


And
Whereas, Regen BioPharma, Inc., with its principal place of business at 4700 Spring St., Suite 304, La Mesa, CA 91942 herein referred
to as ASSIGNEE, desires to acquire the entire right, title, and interest in and to the said Invention,


Now
therefore, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, ASSIGNOR hereby acknowledges
that they have sold, assigned, transferred, and set over, and by these presents do hereby sell, assign, and transfer, and set
over unto ASSIGNEE and its successors and assigns, 100% of the following:


(A)
ASSIGNOR’S right, title and interest in and to the Invention entitled in“TREATMENT OF MYELODYSPLASTIC SYNDROME BY
INHIBITION OF NR2F6”, US Non- Provisional Patent Application No. 14/572,574 filed December 15, 2014,


(B)
any patent or reissues that claim priority to U.S. Non-Provisional Application No 14/572,574; and  


(C)
any continuations, continuations-in-part, substitutes, or divisionals that claim priority to US Non-Provisional Application No.
14/572,574.


ASSIGNOR
authorizes and requests the Commissioner for Patents to issue any resulting patent(s) as follows: 0% to ASSIGNOR and 100% to ASSIGNEE.


ASSIGNOR
hereby further sells, assigns, transfers and sets over unto ASSIGNEE, 100% of ASSIGNOR’S entire right, title, and
interest in and to said invention in the United States and every country foreign to the United States. ASSIGNOR agrees to
execute all papers, give any required testimony, and perform other lawful acts, at ASSIGNEE’S expense, as ASSIGNEE may
require to enable ASSIGNEE to perfect ASSIGNEE’S interest in any resulting patent of the United States and countries
foreign thereto, and to acquire, hold, enforce, convey, and uphold the validity of said patent and reissues and extensions
thereof, and ASSIGNEE’S interest therein.


In
testimony whereof ASSIGNOR intending to be legally bound hereunto affix his signature. 


ASSIGNOR


	/s/ Christine Ichim	December 17, 2014
	(Christine Ichim)	(Date)
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3314 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3314

  To amend title 23, United States Code, to assist States with a high 
    unemployment rate under the equity bonus program, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 23, 2009

   Mr. Schauer (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Peters, Ms. 
  Kilpatrick of Michigan, Mr. Kildee, and Mr. Conyers) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 
                           and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 23, United States Code, to assist States with a high 
    unemployment rate under the equity bonus program, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EQUITY BONUS PROGRAM.

    (a) State Percentage.--With respect to an eligible State during 
fiscal years 2010 through 2015, section 105(b)(1)(A) of title 23, 
United States Code, shall be applied by substituting ``105 percent'' 
for ``92 percent''.
    (b) Eligible State Defined.--In this Act, the term ``eligible 
State'' means a State with an unemployment rate, as determined by the 
Secretary of Transportation, equal to or exceeding 12 percent at any 
time during fiscal year 2009.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 48255]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22439]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--PXI Systems Alliance, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 26, 2017, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. 
(``PXI Systems'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with 
the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose 
of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Advanced Testing Technologies, Inc., Hauppauge, NY; and 
CERN, Geneva, SWITZERLAND, have been added as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and PXI Systems intends to file 
additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On November 22, 2000, PXI Systems filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on March 8, 2001 (66 FR 13971).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on July 3, 
2017. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on July 25, 2017 (82 FR 34550).

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2017-22439 Filed 10-16-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Benny Risner, Australtex Investment Holdings, LLC and Houston 

Broad Based Community Center v. Mazen Jumaa and MJ Medical 

Investment Group, LLC 

Appellate case number: 01-15-00964-CV

Trial court case number: 2015-09067

Trial court: 129th District Court of Harris County

Appellants, Benny Risner, Australtex Investment Holdings, LLC and Houston Broad 

Based Community Center, filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s final summary judgment 

signed on October 27, 2015. On December 14 and December 15, 2015, appellants’ counsel filed 

a “Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice and/or Nonsuit” and a “Motion to Dismiss Appeal with 

Prejudice and/or Nonsuit.” By each motion, counsel seeks a dismissal or non-suit of the appeal 

because the filing fee has not been paid and “will not be paid due to the withdrawal of Attorney 

Wayman L. Prince and the dismissal of appeal of this case,” and the clerk’s record “has not been 

received from appellants which means appellants cannot begin proceedings on any appeals prior 

to payment.” The motion filed on December 14, 2015, includes as an exhibit counsel’s “Motion 

to Withdraw with Intervention and Retention of Legal Interest,” filed in the trial court on 

December 10, 2015. Appellees, Mazen Jumaa and MJ Medical Investment Group, LLC, have 

filed a “Response and Statement of No Opposition to Appellants’ Motion to Dismiss,” stating 

that they do not oppose the motion to dismiss and request that the Court grant the motion to 

dismiss.

However, on December 14, 2015, the Clerk of this Court notified appellants that the 

appeal was subject to dismissal unless they paid the required filing fee by January 13, 2016. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 42.3. The appellant record was due to be filed in this Court on December 28, 

2015. On January 4, 2015, the Clerk of this Court notified the trial court clerk that the record had 

not been timely filed and requested that the clerk’s record be filed by February 3, 2016. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 35.3(a)(2), (c). Further, Wayman L. Prince has appeared as counsel for appellants in 

this proceeding and has not filed in this Court a motion to withdraw from representing appellants 

in this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.1(a), 6.5.

Accordingly, we dismiss as moot the motions to dismiss the appeal with prejudice 

and/or non-suit.
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 14, 2016
#### In the Matter of Willie Leon Hall, Appellant, v Brian Fischer, Commissioner, New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[987 NYS2d 285]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming *1347County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered February 27, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs as moot *(see Matter of Ansari v Travis,*9 AD3d 901 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 610 [2004]).

Present—Smith, J.B, Peradotto, Lindley, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.
#### Timothy D. Gay, Appellant, v Maria Gay, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 4.)

[987 NYS2d 287]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Kevin G. Young, J.), entered November 21, 2012 in a divorce action. The order granted defendant’s request for attorney’s fees and directed plaintiff to pay defendant’s attorney the sum of $2,678.90.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

*1336Same memorandum as in *Gay v Gay*([appeal No. 1] 118 AD3d 1331 [June 13, 2014]).

Present — Smith, J.P, Peradotto, Sconiers, Whalen and DeJoseph, JJ.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-50030 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus LEROY YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. CA-W-94-325 (CR-W-89-145-3)

- - - - - - - - - - June 29, 1995 Before JONES, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The factual and legal bases for Leroy Young's due process violation claim were available when Young filed his first 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion; therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing his current motion as abusive under Rule 9(b) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings. United States v. Flores , 981 F.2d 231, 234 (5th Cir. 1993). AFFIRMED.
FLRA NEWS

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY - WASHINGTON, DC 20424

Contact: Eric Prag FLRA.gov FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 771-444-5859 March 8, 2024

President Biden Issues Executive Order Promoting Labor-Management Forums

On March 6, 2024, President Joseph Biden issued Executive Order 14119 expanding the use of 

Apprenticeships and promoting Labor-Management Forums across federal agencies. Regarding 

Labor-Management Forums, the Executive Order instructs agencies subject to the Federal 

Service Labor-Management Relations Statute to: 

i. Establish Labor-Management forums by creating joint labor-management committees or 

councils at the levels of recognition and other appropriate levels agreed to by the 

employee union and management, or by adapting existing councils or committees if such 

groups exist, to help identify problems and propose solutions to better serve the public 

and agency mission;

ii. Allow employees and their union representatives to have pre-decisional involvement in 

workplace matters, including consultation on Registered Apprenticeship 

recommendations and discussions with management for the development of joint 

solutions to workplace challenges; and

iii. Evaluate and document, in consultation with union representatives and any further 

guidance provided by (the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)), changes in 

employee satisfaction, manager satisfaction, and organizational performance resulting 

from the Labor-Management Forums.

The Order also requires agency heads with one or more exclusive representatives to submit to 

OPM a written implementation plan, within 180 days, addressing these requirements. OPM will 

issue guidance concerning implementation of the Executive Order.

In September 2022, the FLRA released a training video on Labor-Management Forums

educating federal employees, unions, and managers on what Labor-Management Forums are, 

how they can be integrated into the collective bargaining process using Pre-Decisional 

Involvement (PDI), and on ways they can improve labor-management relations.

– Labor-Management Forums –

The FLRA offers training to agencies and unions interested in learning how to create and 

manage Labor-Management Forums that improve delivery of government services and improve 

quality of work life.

Visit FLRA.gov/Training or email TrainingInfo@FLRA.gov for more information.
###

The FLRA administers the labor-management relations program for 2.1 million non-Postal federal 

employees worldwide, approximately 1.2 million of whom are represented in 2,200 bargaining 

units. It is charged with providing leadership in establishing policies and guidance related to 

federal-sector labor-management relations and with resolving disputes under, and ensuring 

compliance with, the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. A.C. ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-5045.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

May 8, 2008.

Douglas A. Horn, Phil Pinnell, Douglas Edward Snow, Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Barry L. Derryberry, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Julia L. O’Connell, Tulsa, OK, for Defendant-Appellant.

*789Before LUCERO, EBEL, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the court on the government’s motion to enforce the appellate waiver contained in defendant’s plea agreement. Through counsel, defendant filed a response in which he agreed that his appeal fell within the scope of the waiver in his plea agreement, that his waiver was knowing and voluntary, and that none of the conditions that would make the waiver unenforceable existed. Because defendant does not contest the government’s motion to enforce the plea agreement, the motion is GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED.

*

 This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-21088

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARKUS LEONARD REECE,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-98-CV-3399

 USDC No. H-96-CR-74-1

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

August 31, 1999

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Marcus Leonard Reece requests this court to grant him a

certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s

denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Reece argues that his

counsel was ineffective during plea bargaining and at sentencing.

A COA will issue only if the applicant has made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

In reviewing a district court’s denial of a § 2255 motion, 
No. 98-21088

-2-

this court examines the factual findings for clear error and

conclusions of law de novo. United States v. Faubion, 19 F.3d

226, 228 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court must set out its

findings of fact and conclusions of law when ruling on a § 2255

motion unless the record conclusively shows that a defendant is

entitled to no relief. United States v. Daly, 823 F.2d 871, 872

(5th Cir. 1987). 

Because the record does not conclusively show that Reece is

entitled to no relief, the district court erred in failing to

provide findings and conclusions in support of its denial of

Reece’s § 2255 motion. Therefore, COA is GRANTED, the district

court’s order is VACATED, and the case REMANDED for the

preparation of findings and conclusions of law.

 Because Reece has raised factual issues in connection with

his claim, the district court should consider obtaining a

response from the Government prior to preparing its findings and

conclusions of law.

COA GRANTED, VACATED AND REMANDED.
EX-35 (d)
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


March 12, 2007

Ace Securities Corporation
AMACAR GROUP
6525 Morrison Boulevard, Suite 318
Charlotte, NC 28211

RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan
    Trust, Series 2006-HE1

Per Section 4.15 (a) of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of
2/1/2006, the undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Master Servicer),
hereby certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or portion thereof:


(A)     A review of such party's activities during the preceding calendar year
        or portion thereof and of such party's performance under this Agreement,
        or such other applicable agreement in the case of an Additional Servicer
        or Servicing Function Participant, has been made under such officer's
        supervision.

(B)     To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, such
        party has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement, or such
        other applicable agreement in the case of an Additional Servicer or
        Servicing Function Participant, in all material respects throughout such
        year or portion thereof, or, if there has been a failure to fulfill any
        such obligation in any material respect, specifying each such failure
        known to such officer and the nature and status thereof.

(C)     Notwithstanding anything herein to contrary (and noting that, to the
        extent of any inconsistency, any and all other statements,
        certifications or assertions herein are subject to the following):
        instances of noncompliance related to the subject transaction for the
        applicable reporting period are identified on Schedule A hereto.


Certified By:
/s/ Kristen Ann Cronin
Kristen Ann Cronin, Vice President

Certified By:
/s/ Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson, Assistant Secretary


(page)


Schedule A


Payment/Distribution Calculation Errors

During the reporting period, certain errors were made in connection with the
calculation of payments/distributions on the securities. To the best of the
signing officer's knowledge, each such error, which may or may not have been
material, has been identified and remedied and any related corrective action has
been disclosed in a report previously filed with the SEC in respect of the
reporting period.
Exhibit
10.3


2007 Short-Term Cash Incentive Plan


Subject
to the achievement of certain revenue and EBITDA goals for the fiscal year
ending December 31, 2007, the following sets forth the target cash bonus awards
for each of the Company’s executive officers.


	
  Executive Officer

  	
   

  	
  Target Payout as a Percentage of Base
  Salary

  
	
  Caren L. Mason

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  President and Chief Executive Officer

  	
   

  	
  50%

  
	
  John M. Radak

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Chief Financial Officer

  	
   

  	
  40%

  
	
  Mark E. Paiz

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Chief Operating Officer

  	
   

  	
  40%

  
	
  Thomas J. Foley

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Chief Technology Officer

  	
   

  	
  40%

  
	
  Robert J. Bujarski

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Senior Vice President, General Counsel &
  Corporate Secretary

  	
   

  	
  40%
Exhibit 32.1

Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated

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 amended Quarterly Report of Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2014 (the Report), I, Joseph K. Belanoff, M.D., Chief 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:



| | (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/ Joseph K. Belanoff  
|Joseph K. Belanoff, M.D.
|Chief Executive Officer 
|October 22, 2014        

This certification is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference
into any filing of Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.