alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.3


 


November 20, 2022


 


Armistice Capital Master Fund Ltd.


510 Madison Avenue


New York, NY 10022


 


Re: Amendment to Existing Warrants


 


Dear Holder:


 


Reference is hereby made to
the offering (the “Offering”) by First Wave BioPharma, Inc. (the “Company”) of (i) shares of its
common stock, par value $0.0001 per share (“Common Stock”), (ii) Pre-Funded Warrants to purchase shares of Common Stock
and (iii) Common Stock Warrants to purchase shares of Common Stock (the “Common Warrants” and, collectively, the “Securities”)
pursuant to that certain Securities Purchase, dated November [ ], 2022, among the Company and the purchasers signatory thereto (the “Purchase
Agreement”). Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Purchase Agreement.


 


This letter confirms that,
in consideration for the Holder’s purchase of $[●] million of Securities in the Offering (the “Purchase Commitment”),
the Company hereby amends, effective as of the date the Company receives the Shareholder Approval (the “Shareholder Approval
Date”), the warrants held by the Holder and listed on Schedule A hereto (collectively, the “Existing Warrants”),
by (i) reducing the respective Exercise Price (as defined therein) of the Existing Warrants to $0.7685 per share and (ii) extending the
respective Termination Date (as defined therein) of the Existing Warrants to the five and one-half year anniversary of the Shareholder
Approval Date (the “Warrant Amendment”). The Warrant Amendment shall be effective upon the Shareholder Approval Date
and the satisfaction of the other terms referenced below.


 


The Warrant Amendment is subject
to the consummation of the Offering, and the Holder’s satisfaction of the Purchase Commitment. In the event that either (i) the
Offering is not consummated, or (ii) the Holder does not satisfy the Purchase Commitment, the Warrant Amendment shall be null and void
and the provisions of the Existing Warrants in effect prior to the date hereof shall remain in effect.


 


From and after the effectiveness
of the Warrant Amendment, the Company agrees to promptly deliver to the Holder, upon request, amended Warrants that reflect the Warrant
Amendments in exchange for the surrender for cancellation of the Holder’s Existing Warrants to be amended as provided herein.


 


[Signature Page Follows]


 






    


     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused
this agreement to be duly executed by their respective authorized signatories as of the date first indicated above.


 


 


	FIRST WAVE BIOPHARMA, INC.	 
	 	 
	 	 
	By:	             	 
	Name:	 
	Title:	 




 


 


	ARMISTICE CAPITAL MASTER FUND LTD.	 
	 	 
	 	 
	By:	              	 
	Name:	 
	Title: Authorized Signatory	 




 


[Signature
Page to Warrant Amendment Agreement]


 






    


     


    

 


Schedule A – Existing Warrants


 


See attached spreadsheet
EXHIBIT 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer 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 on Form 10-Q of
Duquesne Light Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Stevan R. Schott, as Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



WITNESS the due execution hereof this 9thday of August, 2004.



/s/ Stevan R. SchottStevan R. SchottSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



A signed original
of this certification required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company, who will retain it and furnish a copy to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



44
**EXHIBIT 21**

 

Subsidiaries of the Registrant 

 

S-K Item 501 (21) – Subsidiaries of the Registrant: 

 

Artist to Market Distribution LLC, a Michigan LLC 

 

Crave Entertainment Group, Inc., a California Corporation

 

Crave Entertainment, Inc., a CaliforniaCorporation 

 

Entertainment FulfillmentServices, L.L.C., a Michigan LLC 

 

HandlemanCanada, Inc. a Canadian Corporation 

 

HandlemanCategory Management Company, a Michigan Corporation 

 

Handleman Company of Canada, Limited, an Ontario Corporation 

 

Handleman de Argentina S.R.L. 

 

Handleman de Mexico S.A. de C.V. 

 

Handleman do Brasil Commercial Ltda. 

 

Handleman Entertainment Resources, L.L.C., a Michigan LLC 

 

Handleman Real Estate, LLC, a Michigan LLC 

 

Handleman UK Limited, a United Kingdom Corporation 

 

Hanley Advertising Company, a Michigan Corporation 

 

Rackjobbing Services, S.A. de C.V. 

 

REPS, L.L.C., a Michigan LLC 

 

SVG Distribution, Inc., a California Corporation 

 

The itsy bitsy Entertainment Company, a DelawareCorporation 

 

The itsy bitsy EntertainmentHolding Company, a Michigan Corporation
§ 200.2015 The hearing and burden of proof. ( a ) The ALJ will conduct a hearing on the record in order to determine whether the petitioner or respondent should be found liable under this part.
( b ) With regard to the burden of proof in civil money penalty cases under this part— ( 1 ) The respondent or petitioner, as applicable, bears the burden of going forward and the burden of persuasion with respect to affirmative defenses and any mitigating circumstances; and
( 2 ) The DHA bears the burden of going forward and the burden of persuasion with respect to all other issues.
( c ) The burden of persuasion will be judged by a preponderance of the evidence.
( d ) The hearing will be open to the public unless otherwise ordered by the ALJ for good cause shown.
( e ) ( 1 ) A hearing under this part is not limited to specific items and information set forth in the notice letter to the petitioner or respondent. Subject to the 15-day requirement under § 200.2008, additional items and information, including aggravating or mitigating circumstances that arose or became known subsequent to the issuance of the notice letter, may be introduced by either party during its case-in-chief unless such information or items are— ( i ) Privileged; or
( ii ) Deemed otherwise inadmissible under § 200.2017.
( 2 ) After both parties have presented their cases, evidence may be admitted on rebuttal even if not previously exchanged in accordance with § 200.2008.
# FILED May 20, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTION

ROBERT D. DAVIS and ) BRADLEY COUNTY CINDI DAVIS ) 03A01-9707-CV-00247 ) Plaintiffs-Appellants ) ) ) v. ) HON. JOHN B. HAGLER, ) JUDGE ) GARY B. ERWIN, EDGAR H. PIERCE, ) LLOYE HAMILTON and BOYD ) WILLIAMS, Both Individually ) and d/b/a COLDWELL BANKER ) HAMILTON and WILLIAMS REALTY ) ) Defendants-Appellees ) AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

TERRI L. LACEY OF CLEVELAND FOR APPELLANTS JOSEPH R. WHITE and CARL E. SHILES, JR., OF CHATTANOOGA FOR APPELLEES

O P I N I O N

Goddard, P.J.

Robert D. Davis and Cindi Davis appeal a summary judgment granted against them in favor of Edgar H. Pierce, Lloye Hamilton and Boyd Williams, both individually and d/b/a under a partnership named Coldwell Banker Hamilton and Williams Realty.

Although the judgment does not dispose of the case as2

to Gary B. Erwin, the Trial Judge made the summary judgment a final one pursuant to Rule 54 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Plaintiffs’ suit was predicated upon a dog bite suffered by Mr. Davis, resulting in injuries to him and loss of consortium to his wife.

Edgar H. Pierce owned a house and lot which was managed by Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Williams, and their Real Estate Company. It was leased to Gary B. Erwin, the owner and trainer of guard dogs. The guard dog in question was kept on the premises, although the dog bite occurred on nearby property. Under the undisputed proof, Mr. Pierce did not know Mr. Erwin was keeping dogs on the property, and although Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Williams knew that he was they did not know that he was training guard dogs, nor the propensity of the dog which bit Mr. Davis.

Our review of the record persuades us that, under the authority of McKenna v. Jackson , an unreported opinion of this Court filed in Nashville on March 29, 1996, this is an appropriate case for affirmance under Rule 10(a) of this Court.

The judgment of the Trial Court is accordingly affirmed and the cause remanded for collection of costs below. Costs of appeal are adjudged against the Plaintiffs and their surety.3 _______________________________ Houston M. Goddard, P.J.

CONCUR:

________________________________ Herschel P. Franks, J.

________________________________ Don T. McMurray, J.
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________ NO . 09
- 1 3
- 00 450
- C V



### ____________________

IN RE CHAD ALLEN BELL

_______________________________________________________ ______________ Original Proceeding

________________________________________________________ _____________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In a petition for writ of mandamus, Chad Allen Bell seeks to compel the trial court to vacate its order of September 17, 2013, which denied Bell’s motion to disqualify counsel for the real parties in interest, Jeffrey Durham and Pamela
Durham

. Bell seeks an order from us requir ing the trial court to disqualify counsel
for the Durhams

. The parties dispute whether a disqualification occurs when an
associate , who never participated on a case where his employer represented the
defendant , accepts employment by another firm that represents the plaintiff . After considering evidence , the trial court concluded that the associate’s change of employment did not disqualify the associate’s new firm from representing the2 Durhams

. After reviewing the mandamus petition and record, we conclude r elator has not established an abuse of discretion by the trial court. See In re Guar. Ins. Servs., Inc. , 343 S.W.3d 130, 133

- 34 (Tex. 2011); Henderson v. Floyd , 891 S.W.2d 252 (Tex. 1995). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and motion for temporary relief are denied.
PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM
Opinion Delivered October 24, 2013 Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
#### THOMAS v. VAN LEER

No. 590P97

Case below: 128 N.C.App. 187

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 February 1998.
Exhibit 13.2


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Elron Electronic Industries, Ltd. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Zvi Slovin, Co-Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(i)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(ii) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: March 28, 2010

/s/ Zvi SlovinZvi SlovinCo-Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)
### Correlation chart for Precambrian rocks of the Eastern United States

By: Douglas W. RankinT. W. SternJames McLellandR. E. ZartmanA.L. Odom

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1241E

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
January 10, 2011

Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral Agents in HIV-1-Infected Adults and Adolescents Page 8 

Table 5b. Acceptable Antiretroviral Regimens for Treatment-Naïve Patients

(Updated January 10, 2011)

Acceptable Regimens (CI) (Regimens that may be selected for some patients but are less satisfactory than preferred or alternative 

regimens) and Regimens that may be Acceptable but more definitive data are needed (CIII)

NNRTI-Based Regimen

• EFV + ddI + (3TC or FTC) (CI)

PI-Based Regimens

• ATV + (ABC or ZDV)/3TC1 (CI)

• DRV/r + (ABC or ZDV)/3TC1 (CIII)

INSTI-Based Regimen

• RAL + (ABC or ZDV)/3TC1 (CIII)

CCR5 Antagonist-Based Regimens

• MVC + ZDV/3TC1 (CI)

• MVC + TDF/FTC1 or ABC/3TC1 (CIII)

Comments

EFV + ddI + (FTC or 3TC) has only been studied in small clinical 

trials.

ATV/r is generally preferred over ATV. Unboosted ATV may be used 

when RTV boosting is not possible.

MVC

Tropism testing should be performed before initiation of therapy; only 

patients found to have only CCR5-tropic virus are candidates for MVC.

Regimens that may be acceptable but should be used with caution (Regimens that have demonstrated virologic efficacy 

in some studies but have safety, resistance, or efficacy concerns. See comments below.)

NNRTI-Based Regimens

• NVP + ABC/3TC1 (CIII)

• NVP + TDF/FTC1 (CIII)

PI-Based Regimens

• FPV + [(ABC or ZDV)/3TC1 or TDF/FTC1] (CIII)

• SQV/r + TDF/FTC1 (CI)

• SQV/r + (ABC or ZDV)/3TC1 (CIII)

Comments

Use NVP and ABC together with caution because both can cause HSRs 

within first few weeks after initiation of therapy.

Early virologic failure with high rates of resistance has been reported in 

some patients receiving NVP + TDF + (3TC or FTC). Larger clinical 

trials are currently in progress.

FPV/r is generally preferred over unboosted FPV. Virologic failure with 

unboosted FPV-based regimen may select mutations that confer cross 

resistance to DRV.

SQV/r

• SQV/r was associated with PR and QT prolongation in a healthy 

volunteer study.

• Baseline ECG is recommended before initiation of SQV/r.

• SQV/r is not recommended in patients with any of the following:

1. pretreatment QT interval >450 msec

2. refractory hypokalemia or hypomagnesemia

3. concomitant therapy with other drugs that prolong QT interval

4. complete AV block without implanted pacemaker

5. risk of complete AV block

1

3TC maybe substituted with FTC or vice versa.

Acronyms: 3TC = lamivudine, ABC = abacavir, ATV = atazanavir, ATV/r = atazanavir/ritonavir, AV = atrioventricular, ddI = didanosine,

DRV = darunavir, DRV/r = darunavir/ritonavir, ECG = electrocardiogram, EFV = efavirenz, FPV = fosamprenavir, FPV/r = fosamprenavir/ritonavir, 

FTC = emtricitabine, HSR = hypersensitivity reaction, INSTI = integrase strand transfer inhibitor, msec = millisecond, MVC = maraviroc, 

NNRTI = non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, NVP = nevirapine, PI = protease inhibitor, RAL = raltegravir, RTV = ritonavir, SQV = saquinavir, SQV/r = 

saquinavir/ritonavir, TDF = tenofovir, ZDV = zidovudine
### Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions

NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website

(r eleased the week prior to November 23, 2021 

### )

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of

Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES :



### None Available

The above

- listed memorandum opinions c an be viewed online through the

appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebra ska.gov:

http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/

.

Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here:

http s ://www.nebraska.gov/courts/s c ca les/

.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20 - 0115

______________________________________ THE CITY OF MISSOULA,

P laintiff/Appellee , v. MOUNTAIN WATER COMPANY, a Montana Corporation; and CARLYLE INFRASTRUCTURE PARTNERS, LP, a Delaware limited partnership,

Defendants/Appellants , and THE EMPLOYEES OF MOUNTAIN WATER COMPANY, et al .

Intervenors .

______________________________________ **ORDER GRANT ING**  **THE CITY OF MISSOULA’S UNOPPOSED** 

**MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME**

______________________________________ Appellee City of Missoula has moved the Court, pursuant to Montana Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(1), for a 30 -day extension of time to file its response brief, currently due on November 18 , 2020 . Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee City of Missoula has up to and including December 18 , 2020 , in which to file its opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court November 9 2020

11/09/2020
**DUQUESNE LIGHT EXHIBIT 31.2**

         I, Stevan R. Schott, Senior VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of Duquesne Light Company, certify that:

         1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of Duquesne Light Company;

         2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

         3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

         4.     The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

         a)     designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

         b)     evaluated the effectiveness ofthe registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and

         c)     disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

         5.     The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialaccounting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

         a)     all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to materially adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

         b)     any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

         Date: August 14, 2003
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2

- 10

- 081

- CV

IN RE LLANO ROYALTY, LTD. RELATOR

AND LLANO OPERATING

CORPORATION D/B/A NORTH

TEXAS LLANO OPERATING

CORPORATION

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

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

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

The court has considered relators = petition for writ of mandamus, relators =

motion for emergency relief, the response of the real party in interest, and relators =

reply and is of the opinion that all relief should be denie d. Accordingly, our March

24, 2010 stay order is hereby vacated, and relators = petition for writ of mandamus

is denied.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8(d).Relators shall pay all costs of this original proceeding, for which let

execution issue.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, J.; LIVING STON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DELIVERED: June 17, 2010
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                                  CERTIFICATION
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of EDO Corporation, a New York corporation (the "Company"),
does hereby certify that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 25, 2005 (the "Form
10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the
Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Dated: July 29, 2005           /s/ JAMES M. SMITH
                               -------------------------------------------------
                               Name: James M. Smith
                               Title: Chairman, President and
                                      Chief Executive Officer

Dated: July 29, 2005           /s/ FREDERIC B. BASSETT
                               -------------------------------------------------
                               Name: Frederic B. Bassett
                               Title: Vice President-Finance, Treasurer and
                                      Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.