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


EXHIBIT 4.2

 

AMENDMENT

TO THE

PROMISSORY NOTE DATED MARCH 8, 2005

TO HARMEL S. RAYAT







AMENDMENT dated January 18, 2006 (the “Note Amendment”) to that certain Promissory Note dated March 8, 2005 (the “Note”), issued by Hepalife Technologies, Inc., a Florida corporation (the “Company”), to Harmel S. Rayat, in the original principal amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000), the original executed copy of which is attached hereto.




1.

Amendment to Note.  In accordance with the terms and provisions of Section 4(a) of the Note, the Note is hereby amended as follows:




(a)  By deleting section 1 thereof and substituting the following in lieu thereof:




1.  Payment.  (a)  The Outstanding Principal balance of the Note, together with accrued and unpaid interest thereon shall be paid by the Company to the Holder, at the address as provided to the Company by the Holder in writing, in lawful money of the United States of America upon the earlier to occur of:




(1)  The occurrence of an Event of Default (as defined in Section 2 of the Note), which occurrence shall be deemed written demand by the holder for payment of the note; or




(2)  The Company’s receipt of written demand for payment from the Holder.




(b)  Interest shall accrue with respect to the unpaid principal amount of the loan from the date of this Note until such principal is paid at a rate of eight and one-half percent (8.50%) per annum (computed on the basis of a 365-day year).




(c)  Company shall have the right at any time and without penalty to prepay, in whole or in part, the principal outstanding and/or the interest accrued hereunder.”







2.

Balance of provisions of Note to Remain Unchanged and in Force and Effect.  Except as amended by Section 1 of this Note Amendment, all of the other terms and provisions of the Note remain unchanged and in full force and effect.




3.

Binding Effect; Assigns.  This Note Amendment and all of the provisions hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Holder, his successors and assigns.




4.

Governing Law.  This Note Amendment and the validity, interpretation and performance of the terms and provisions hereof shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the internal laws of the State of Florida, without regard to the principles of conflicts of laws.




5.

Headings.  The headings used in this Note Amendment are for convenience of  reference only and shall not be construed to affect the meaning or construction of any of the provisions hereof.











6.

Entire Amendment.  This Note Amendment constitutes the entire amendment of the Note, and supersedes all prior agreements and undertakings, both written and oral, between the Company and the Holder with respect to such specific subject matter.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Note Amendment to be executed this 18th day of January, 2006.







Hepalife Technologies, Inc.




By

/s/ Arian Soheili

Name:

Arian Soheili

Title:

Secretary and Treasurer
#### Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant, v Evandis, Inc. et al., Respondents.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered September 7, 1977, affirmed, with costs, on the opinion of Mr. Justice Lakritz at Trial Term. (See, also, in addition, *Security Mut. Ins. Co. of N. Y. v Acker-Fitzsimons Corp.,*31 NY2d 436, 441.) Shapiro, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 243 (Monday, December 20, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 75861]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27792]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 04-3814; MB Docket No. 04-214; RM-10992]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Jackson, WY

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 69 FR 35564 
(June 25, 2004), this Report and Order dismisses the Petition for Rule 
Making in MB Docket No. 04-214 proposing to allot Channel 249A at 
Jackson, Wyoming. No expression of interest was filed in this proposal.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria M. McCauley, Media Bureau 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MB Docket No. 04-214, adopted December 1, 2004, and 
released December 3, 2004. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, 445 12th Street, 
SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The document may also be 
purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 
Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, 
Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or http://www.BCPIWEB.com. This document is not subject to the Congressional 
Review Act. (The Commission, is, therefore, not required to submit a 
copy of this Report and Order to GAO, pursuant to the Congressional 
Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) because the proposed rule was 
dismissed, herein.)

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 04-27792 Filed 12-17-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4347 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 709 West 9th Street 

in Juneau, Alaska, as the ‘‘Robert Boochever United States Courthouse’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 30, 2012 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 709 

West 9th Street in Juneau, Alaska, as the ‘‘Robert 

Boochever United States Courthouse’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The United States courthouse located at 709 West 

5 9th Street in Juneau, Alaska, shall be known and des6 ignated as the ‘‘Robert Boochever United States Court7 house’’. 

8 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

9 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

10 paper, or other record of the United States to the United 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4347 IH

1 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

2 to be a reference to the ‘‘Robert Boochever United States 

3 Courthouse’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### BISHAWAITI v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

March 21, 1905.)

Connecting Cabbiees—Shipment Beyond Initial Cabbieb’s Line—Liability.

The mere receipt of goods marked for a place beyond the terminus of the initial carrier’s route does not import a contract to carry them to destination, but in the absence of special contract the initial carrier is only responsible to the extent of its own route, and for safe delivery to the succeeding carrier.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 9, Cent. Dig. Carriers, §§ 779, 781.]

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.

Action by A. K. Bishawaiti against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. From a Municipal Court judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before SCOTT, O’GORMAN, and BLANCHARD, JJ.

Robinson, Biddle & Ward (Norman B. Beecher, of counsel), for appellant.

Charles E. Le Barbier, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The well-established rule in this state is that the mere receipt of goods marked for a place beyond the terminus of the carrier’s route does not import a contract to carry them to their final destination, but that in the absence of a special contract the carrier is only responsible to the extent of his own route, and for safe delivery to the next connecting carrier. Root v. Great Western R. R., 45 N. Y. 524. A carrier may, indeed, make a special contract for-through transportation, but the burden of such a contract rests upon the plaintiff who seeks to enforce it. In the present case not only is there no proof of such a contract, but the shipping receipt contains a special clause exempting the first carrier from liability beyond its own lines. It appears by stipulation that the defendant railroad ■ company safely delivered the goods to the *784next connecting carrier on the route to final destination. On the proof as it stood, the defendant should have succeeded.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2641 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2641

To require the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission to take 
  into consideration the homeland security contributions and value of 
  military installations when the Commission conducts its review and 
analysis of the list of military installations recommended for closure 
              or realignment by the Secretary of Defense.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 2005

 Ms. Slaughter (for herself, Mr. Paul, Mr. Delahunt, Ms. Herseth, and 
  Mr. Taylor of Mississippi) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission to take 
  into consideration the homeland security contributions and value of 
  military installations when the Commission conducts its review and 
analysis of the list of military installations recommended for closure 
              or realignment by the Secretary of Defense.

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

SECTION 1. DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT COMMISSION 
              CONSIDERATION OF HOMELAND SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND 
              VALUE OF MILITARY INSTALLATIONS.

    (a) Consideration of Homeland Security Contributions and Value.--In 
conducting its review and analysis of the list of military 
installations recommended for closure or realignment that the Secretary 
of Defense submitted to Congress on May 13, 2005, pursuant to section 
2914 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of 
title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note), the Defense 
Base Closure and Realignment Commission shall consider the homeland 
security contributions and value of each military installation included 
on such list.
    (b) Retroactive Application.--If the Defense Base Closure and 
Realignment Commission completes its review and analysis of the 
Secretary's list before the date of the enactment of this Act, all 
other actions carried out under section 2914 of the Defense Base 
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 by the Commission or the President 
before the date of the enactment of this Act shall have no further 
force and effect, and such actions may resume only after the Commission 
complies with subsection (a). In order to provide sufficient time for 
the Commission to comply with subsection (a), each date specified in 
subsections (d) and (e) of section 2914 of the Defense Base Closure and 
Realignment Act of 1990 shall be deemed to be the date that is one year 
later than the specified date.
                                 <all>
```
§ 71.1 Protection of Americans abroad. ( a ) Consular officers shall perform such duties in connection with the protection of U.S. nationals abroad as may be required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary of State.
( b ) U.S. citizens seeking protection, welfare, or other routine American Citizen Services, Special Consular Services, and consular crisis preparedness and response from an American Citizens Services Unit at a U.S. embassy or consulate may be assisted in related proceedings by a third party of their own choice at their own expense in accordance with 22 CFR 50.52.
( c ) For purposes of this part, *consular officer* includes any United States citizen employee of the Department of State who is designated by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Overseas Citizens Services to perform consular services overseas.
[89 FR 41311, May 13, 2024]
#### Morton Olshan, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Appellants, v Greater New York Mutual Insurance Co. et al., Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on April 8, 1977, unanimously affirmed on the opinion of Gellinoff, J., at Special Term. Respondents shall recover of appellants $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Lupiano, Markewich and Yesawich, JJ.
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.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers

# AGENCY:

Department of the Army, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following committee meeting:

*Name of Committee:*                         Coastal Engineering Research Board (CERB).                    

*Date of Meeting:*                         6-7 January 2005.                    

*Place:*                         Hyatt Regency DFW, DFW Airport, Texas.                    

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 5 p.m. (6 January 2005). 8 a.m. to 12 noon (7 January 2005).                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Inquiries and notice of intent to attend the meeting may be addressed to Colonel James R. Rowan, Executive Secretary, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Waterways Experiment Station, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-6199.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

*Proposed Agenda:*                     An Executive Session of the Board will meet to discuss action items from past meetings and ongoing initiatives.                

This meeting is open to the public, but since seating capacity of the meeting room is limited, advance notice of intent to attend, although not required, is requested in order to assure adequate arrangements for those wishing to attend.

Brenda S. Bowen,

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 04-27571 Filed 12-15-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710-61-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William Carl Auth, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed. (Appeal from order of Onondaga County Court denying petitioner’s application for a writ of error *coram nobis,*without a hearing.) Present —Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
### §4370m–12. Repealed. Pub. L. 117–58, div. G, title VIII, §70801(h), Nov. 15, 2021, 135 Stat. 1294

Section, Pub. L. 114–94, div. D, title XLI, §41013, Dec. 4, 2015, 129 Stat. 1761, provided that this subchapter shall terminate 7 years after Dec. 4, 2015.
#### Alejandro MIRANDA-GAYTAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-73640.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 12, 2007 *.

Filed March 21, 2007.

*635Elsa I. Martinez, Esq., Martinez Golds-by *&*Associates, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Nancy E. Friedman, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Alejandro Miranda-Gaytan, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, *Singh v. Gonzales,*416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir.2005), and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to continue, *Nakamoto v. Ashcroft,*363 F.3d 874, 883 n. 6 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA and the IJ correctly found that Miranda-Gaytan was ineligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act because his prior conviction did not involve “a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana” for which a waiver could be granted. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). Miranda-Gaytan was convicted under California Health & Safety Code § 11359, for possessing marijuana for sale. Therefore, his application for adjustment of status was properly pretermitted.

Moreover, the IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying Miranda-Gaytan’s request for a continuance in order to collaterally attack his criminal conviction in state court. *Cf. Contreras v. Schiltgen,*122 F.3d 30, 33 (9th Cir.1997), *aff'd on add’l grounds in Contreras v. Schiltgen,*151 F.3d 906, 908 (9th Cir.1998) (holding that the government may rely on the validity of a state court conviction for custody and deportation purposes until it is overturned in collateral state proceedings).

We lack jurisdiction to review Miranda-Gaytan’s argument that the statute of conviction was divisible because he failed to exhaust this issue before the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 246 (Thursday, December 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 79752]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32770]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending December 10, 2011

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (see 14 CFR 301.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2011-0227.
    Date Filed: December 7, 2011.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: December 28, 2011.
    Description: Application of Aviation Safety & Security Consultants, 
Ltd., d/b/a Butler's Aviation requesting issuance of a foreign air 
carrier permit to the extent necessary to permit it to engage in 
charter foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail 
between a point or points in the Bahamas and a point or points in 
Florida, and other charters using small aircraft.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2010-0264.
    Date Filed: December 6, 2011.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: December 27, 2011.
    Description: Application of Whitejets Transportes A[eacute]reos 
Ltda. (``Whitejets'') requesting amendment of its foreign air carrier 
permit to remove the prior approval requirement imposed by Order 2011-
3-15 consistent with the Department's decisions in other recent cases 
involving Brazilian carriers. Whitejets also requests an exemption to 
the extent necessary to allow Whitejets to operate charters between 
Brazil and the United States without needing to obtain prior approval 
from the Department in the form of a statement of authorization.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2011-32770 Filed 12-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2494

To suspend temporarily the duty on Chloroacetic acid, ethyl ester. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 19, 2005

Mr. HAYES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on Chloroacetic acid, ethyl 

ester.

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

3 SECTION 1. CHLOROACETIC ACID, ETHYL ESTER. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.05.70 Chloroacetic acid, ethyl ester 

(CAS No. 105–39–5) (provided for in subheading 

2915.40.50) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2

•HR 2494 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
### §3796hh. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3796hh was editorially reclassified as section 10461 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### Peter Regan, Plaintiff, v. American Stevedores, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Grace Line Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Order entered on September 21, 1961 denying motion of third-party defendant to dismiss the third-party complaint unanimously reversed on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, the motion granted and the third-party complaint dismissed. The complaint in this action charged the third-party plaintiff solely with acts which would constitute active or primary negligence. There is nothing alleged in the complaint which could impose *909liability on the third-party plaintiff by reason of passive or secondary negligence. Under such circumstances there is no right to implied indemnity against the third-party defendant *(Bush Term. Bldgs,*v. *Luckenbach S. S. Co.,*9 N Y 2d 426, 430). Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.