alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Cheryl F. COHENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES; Baltimore City Department of Social Services, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-2489.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 17, 2014.

Decided: April 21, 2014.

Cheryl F. Cohens, Appellant Pro Se. Elise Song Kurlander, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appel-lees.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Cheryl F. Cohens seeks to appeal the district court’s order finally disposing of all claims in her action alleging employment discrimination. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). “[ T] he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on July 30, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed on December 11, 2013. Because Cohens failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
Exhibit 10.36

   

  Ocuphire Pharma, Inc. 

  FIRST AMENDMENT TO 2018 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN

   

  This First Amendment to 2018 Equity Incentive Plan (this “Amendment”) is
    made effective as of December 23, 2019 (the “Effective Date”).

   

  Background

   

  Whereas, the Board of Directors (the “Board”) and the stockholders (the “Stockholders”) of Ocuphire Pharma, Inc.,
      a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), have previously approved and adopted the Ocuphire Pharma, Inc. 2018 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”); and

   

  Whereas, the Board and the Stockholders have approved an amendment to the Plan, as provided herein.

   

  Now, Therefore, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

   

  Terms and Conditions

   

  1.             Amendment to Section 3(a). As
    of the Effective Date, the first sentence of Section 3(a) of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

   

  “Subject to the provisions of Section 9(a) relating to Capitalization Adjustments, the aggregate number of shares of Common Stock that may be
    issued pursuant to Stock Awards beginning on the Effective Date shall not exceed 1,175,000 shares (the “Share Reserve”).”

   

  2.             Amendment to Section 3(c). As
    of the Effective Date, Section 3(c) of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

   

  “(c)      Incentive Stock Option Limit. Subject to the provisions of Section 9(a) relating to Capitalization Adjustments and
    notwithstanding any other provision of this Section 3, the aggregate maximum number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued pursuant to the exercise of Incentive Stock Options shall be the Share Reserve.”

   

  3.             Construction. Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms shall have
    the meanings set forth in the Plan. The terms of this Amendment amend and modify the Plan as if fully set forth therein. If there is any conflict between the terms, conditions and obligations of this Amendment and the Plan, this Amendment’s terms,
    conditions and obligations shall control. All other provisions of the Plan not specifically modified by this Amendment are preserved.

   

  4.             Electronic Signature. This Amendment may be executed and delivered by
    facsimile or other means of electronically imaging a signature.

   

  
      

    
      

    

  

   

  In Witness Whereof, this First Amendment to 2018 Equity Incentive Plan is made effective as of the date first set forth above.

   

  	THE COMPANY:	 
	 	 
	Ocuphire Pharma, Inc.	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Mina Sooch	 
	Name:  Mina Sooch	 
	Title:    Chief Executive Officer and President	 


  

   

  Signature Page to 

  

  First Amendment to 2018 Equity Incentive Plan
---

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR

We hereby consent to the inclusion in this Annual Report on
Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 of Crystallex International
Corporation of our report dated March 31, 2011, relating to the consolidated
financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting which appears in Exhibit 1.2 attached to this Annual Report on Form
40-F.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-126128) (the Registration
Statement) of Crystallex International Corporation of our report referred to
above. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading Interests of
Experts in the Annual Information Form incorporated by reference in this Annual
Report on Form 40-F filed as Exhibit 1.1 attached to this Annual Report on Form
40-F, which is incorporated by reference in such Registration Statement.

|                | /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP                          
|--------------- | --------------------------------------------------------
|Toronto, Canada |                                                         
|March 31, 2011  | Chartered Accountants, Licensed Public
      Accountants

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting.

*Name:*                        Special Emphasis Panel in Mathematical Sciences (1204).                    

*Date/Time:*                        March 22-24, 2001, 7:30 a.m.-5 p.m.                    

*Place:*                        Room 310, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                        Closed.                    

*Contact Persons:*                        Drs. Sidney A. Coon, (703) 292-7382, Brent B. Gordon. (703) 292-4877, and Henry A. Warchall, (703) 292-4861, Program Directors, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                        To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                        To review and evaluate proposals concerning the Mathematical Sciences and Physics Programs, as part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                        The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: February 14, 2001.

Susanne Bolton,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 01-4161  Filed 2-20-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2178

To amend the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act to authorize

appropriations for fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 19, 1993

Mr. RAHALL (for himself, Mr. MINETA, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. PETRI, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. MOORHEAD, Mr. SWIFT, and Mr. OXLEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the Committees on Energy and

Commerce and Public Works and Transportation

A BILL

To amend the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act to

authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1994, 1995,

1996, and 1997.

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

3 That section 115(a) of the Hazardous Materials Transpor4 tation Act (49 U.S.C. App. 1812(a)) is amended by strik5 ing ‘‘and’’ after ‘‘1992,’’ and by inserting before the pe6 riod at the end the following: ‘‘, $18,000,000 for fiscal

7 year 1994, $18,540,000 for fiscal year 1995, $19,100,000

8 for fiscal year 1996, and $19,670,000 for fiscal year

9 1997’’.
2

•HR 2178 IH

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from United
Investors Income Properties 1997 Second Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000830056
<NAME> UNITED INVESTORS INCOME PROPERTIES
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             735
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        8
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          12,252
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,801
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,058
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,940
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,058
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   898
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   665
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       246
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.00<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.2


Amendment to the e.l.f. Beauty, Inc. 2016 Equity Incentive Award Plan
Effective July 2, 2020
This Amendment to the e.l.f. Beauty, Inc. 2016 Equity Incentive Award Plan (as amended, the “Plan”) is effective as of the date first set forth above, such amendment having been approved by the Board of Directors of e.l.f. Beauty, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on June 30, 2020 in accordance with the Plan.
As of result of the foregoing approval:
		
	1.
	Section 3.1(a)(iii) of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:




“(iii) an annual increase on the first day of each calendar year beginning in 2021 and ending in 2026 equal to the lesser of (A) two percent (2%) of the Shares outstanding on the last day of the immediately preceding calendar year and (B) such smaller number of Shares as determined by the Board”
(Signature Page Follows)









The undersigned, being the duly appointed and acting Corporate Secretary of the Company, hereby certifies that the foregoing amendment was duly approved and adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company effective as of the date first referenced above.
	
				
	 
	By:
	/s/ Scott Milsten
	 

	 
	 
	Name:  Scott Milsten
	 

	 
	 
	Title:    Corporate Secretary
	 






Signature Page to Amendment to the e.l.f. Beauty, Inc. 2016 Equity Incentive Award Plan
57%

43%

Purchase Refinance

March 2016

$32 $87

Billion Billion

YTD 2016

1.20%

3,933

March 2016 Highlights

SF delinquency rate is 90+ days; MF rate is 60+ days 

0.04%
943 A.2d 263

#### ALLEGHENY COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY, Respondent, v. CONSTRUCTION GENERAL LABORERS AND MATERIAL HANDLERS UNION, 1058, Petitioner.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 25, 2008.

*353
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 25th day of March 2008, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED and the Commonwealth Court’s order is VACATED. The matter is REMANDED to the Commonwealth Court for reconsideration in light of our decision in *Westmoreland Intermediate Unit*# *7 v. Westmoreland Intermediate Unit*# *7 Classroom Assistants Educational Support Personnel Association, PSEA/NEA,*939 A.2d 855 (Pa.2007) (supplanting the “core function” exception to the essence test with a public policy exception).

Pennsylvania State Education Association’s motion for leave to file amicus brief is dismissed as moot.
EXHIBIT 99.1
        SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT OF AMERISTAR CASINOS, INC.


Ameristar Casinos, Inc. ("ACI") hereby agrees to furnish
supplementally to the Securities and Exchange Commission a copy
of any of the following instruments defining the rights of
holders of long-term debt issued by ACI or its subsidiaries:

     Promissory Note, dated November 22, 1976, from Cactus
     Pete's, Inc. ("CPI") to United States of America and related
     Credit Agreement.
     
     Promissory Note, dated October 7, 1983, from CPI to United
     States of America and related Credit Agreements.
     
     Credit Agreement, dated June 27, 1996, between ACCBI and PDS
     Financial Corporation ("PDS"); Promissory Note from ACCBI to
     PDS; related Security Agreement; and Guaranty from ACI to
     PDS.
     
     Premium Finance Agreement, Disclosure Statement and Security
     Agreement, dated June 24, 1997, between ACI and A.I. Credit
     Corp.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2362 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2362

   To make a technical correction with respect to the temporary duty 
                   suspension for clomiphene citrate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 9, 1993

  Mr. Neal of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To make a technical correction with respect to the temporary duty 
                   suspension for clomiphene citrate.

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

SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTION.

    Heading 9902.29.95 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (relating to clomiphene citrate) is amended by inserting ``or 
3004.90.60'' after ``2922.19.15''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the 
amendment made by section 1 applies with respect to goods entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Retroactive Application.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514) or any other provision of law to 
the contrary, upon a request filed with the appropriate customs officer 
before the 90th day after the date of the enactment of this Act, any 
entry or withdrawal from warehouse for consumption--
            (1) which was made after December 31, 1988, and before the 
        15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
            (2) with respect to which there would have been no duty if 
        the amendment made by section 1 applied to such entry or 
        withdrawal;
shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such amendment applied to 
such entry or withdrawal.

                                 <all>
```
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2324

To suspend for a 3-year period the duty on omega-dodecalactam.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 27, 1993

Mr. SPRATT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To suspend for a 3-year period the duty on omegadodecalactam.

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

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY DUTY SUSPENSION FOR IM4 PORTED OMEGA-DODECALACTAM.

5 Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tar6 iff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting

7 in numerical sequence the following new heading:
2

•HR 2324 IH

‘‘ 9902.31.11 Omegadodecalactam

(provided for in

subheading

2933.79.50) ....... Free No change No change On or before

the 3-Year period beginning

on the 15th

day after the

date of the enactment of this

heading ’’.

1 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

2 The amendment made by section 1 applies with re3 spect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse con4 sumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the

5 enactment of this Act.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7327

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SHONDU MAURICE DAWSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (5:04-cr-00305-F-2; 5:12-cv-00292-F)

Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 4, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Devon L. 

Donahue, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Kimberly Ann Moore, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Shondu Maurice Dawson seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Dawson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roberto BAHENA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-40913

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 16, 2014.

John Albert Craft, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Norman J. Silverman, Attorney, Silver-man Law Group, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Roberto Bahena-Garcia pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 1,000 or more marijuana plants. He was sentenced to the statutory minimum sentence of 120 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. The district court denied Bahena-Garcia’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

Bahena-Garcia contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to withdraw and by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on that motion. He maintains that his plea was not knowing and voluntary because his initial attorney did not correctly advise him about his sentencing exposure and did not inform him about the requisite proof for a dismissed count (i.e., an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 924) and a sentencing enhancement to which the parties stipulated in the plea agreement (i.e., a two-level increase pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l)). Bahena-Garcia further contends that he did not inordinately delay in filing his motion to withdraw; that the Government would not be substantially prejudiced by withdrawal of his plea; and that withdrawal of his plea would not significantly inconvenience the district court or waste an unusual amount of judicial resources. He admits that he has not asserted his innocence. We need not determine whether the appellate waiver provision in Bahena-Garcia’s plea agreement bars this appeal because the Government has not sought to enforce the waiver. *See United States v. Story,*439 F.3d 226, 231 (5th Cir.2006).

We review the district court’s decision to deny a motion to withdraw for abuse of discretion. *United States v. McKnight,*570 F.3d 641, 645 (5th Cir.2009). A review *309of the record, Bahena-Garcia’s arguments, and the factors listed in *United States v. Carr,*740 F.2d 389, 343-4 (5th Cir.1984), establishes that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying BahenaGarcia’s motion. *See id.*As Bahena-Garcia did not allege sufficient facts to justify relief on his claim, the district court did not abuse its discretion by not holding an evidentiary hearing before denying the motion. *See United States v. Powell,*354 F.3d 362, 370 (5th Cir.2003).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.