alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amended Consulting Agreement - Peter C. Pang



 
Exhibit 4.1(c)

 
Amendment No. 1 to Consulting Agreement

Between Calypte Biomedical Corporation 
and Peter C. Pang 
 
This Agreement amends and modifies the Consulting Agreements between Calypte Biomedical Corporation (“Calypte” or the “Company”) and IPO Pang PC/Peter C. Pang (“Consultant”) and is effective as of April
11, 2003. 
 
Whereas, the Company desires to change the payment
terms on the contract for certain consulting services performed in 2002 and 2003, as well as future services, and Consultant is agreeable to such modification. 
 
Now therefore, in consideration of the premises and mutual promises set forth herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
 

	 	1.	 	The Company acknowledges that as of March 31, 2003 it owes Consultant certain amounts for services rendered, payable in cash and totaling $59,442.50. It will now
convert this amount to stock issuable to Consultant individually, or his designee, based on the closing market price of Calypte Common Stock on the effectiveness date of the registration statement in Section 2 below. 

 

	 	2.	 	In consideration for this modification, the Company agrees to register the shares with the upcoming S-8 filing during April 2003. 

 

	 	3.	 	The Company agrees to register 3 million shares for such purposes. After satisfying the above commitment, shares can be used at the option of the Consultant, upon
written notice, to pay for future services under the ongoing consulting agreement. Such stock would be payable at the then current market price on the date of the written notice. 

 

	 	4.	 	All other terms and conditions of the existing Consultant Agreements remain unchanged. 

 

	 Consultant:
	 	 	 	 CALYPTE BIOMEDICAL CORPORATION


	
	 /s/    PETER C. PANG

	 	 	 	 By:
	 	 /s/    RICHARD D. BROUNSTEIN



	 Peter C. Pang
	 	 	 	 	 	 Richard D. Brounstein
 EVP & CFO


 

19
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                  ------------

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection  with the Annual Report of Legend Mobile,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form  10-KSB  for the  period  ending  December  31,  2004,  as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Peter
Klamka,  Chairman,  Secretary,  President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal
Accounting Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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.





Date:    May 16, 2005           /s/ Peter Klamka
                                ------------------------------------------------
                                Peter Klamka
                                Chairman, Secretary, President and Chief
                                Executive Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)
#### Paul Endress *v.*John F. Nelp.

1. It is no cause for a new trial that an attorney submits a cause to trial without notice to his client, although the client is thereby deprived of an opportunity of bringing forward additional testimony.

*2.*Probable ground for the reversal of .a judgment must be shown in a petition asking for a new trial.

Special Term. — Petition for a new trial and to enjoin proceedings on a judgment rendered against the plaintiff herein, at a former term.

The facts are sufficiently stated in the decision.

*Rairden & Bocking,*for plaintiff.

*Walker, Kebler & Force,*for defendant.

Gholson, J.

In this case, which is a petition under the code for a new trial, filed June 15,1857, an application was made for an injunction to restrain proceedings on the judgment which had been rendered against the plaintiff. The finding of the court as to which a new trial is asked, was made at the October term, 1856. The ground for the new trial is, that the ease was submitted without any actual knowledge on the part of plaintiff, and he had important testimony which he would have brought before the court. That he did not know until about January 1,1857, that the case had been submitted and a finding made, and an interlocutory order entered by the court.

It appeared from the papers in the original action, that after the now plaintiff, Endress, had actual notice of the order, a report was made by the master and a judgment entered on the report, he being represented both before the master and in the final hearing of the case upon the report. This hearing resulted in a final judgment, and on that the execution has *412been issued, which it is the object of the present application to stay, and I hold:

1. That the application is too late, either upon,the ordinary principles governing such cases or under any of the provisions of the code.

2. That the plaintiff having been represented by his counsel, as shown by his own answer in the original ease, and that counsel having submitted the case, can not be permitted to allege the ground of surprise. It must be considered that he was represented and had notice. Such an indirect way of attacking the acts of counsel who appear for a party, can not be permitted. In this case, the counsel, who appeared and submitted the case, are the same who prepared the answer which is sworn to by the present plaintiff. Their names, signed as counsel, appear immediately above his name. He can not deny their authority to represent him in the case, or avoid the effect of a submission of the case. If the case was submitted prematurely, without notice to him, and without giving him an opportunity of bringing forward other testimony in his power, this is no ground of mistake or surprise which will justify a new trial.

On either ground, therefore, there is difficulty in the way of the plaintiff’s success, which shows that there is no probable ground to expect the granting a new trial when the present proceeding shall be determined. It is only upon this probable ground that the court can properly interfere by an injunction, and the application will therefore be refused.

Petition is dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEPTEMBER
30, 1996 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       2,421,723
<SECURITIES>                                   686,182
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,863,667
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,338,192
<INVENTORY>                                    160,440
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,352,413
<PP&E>                                       2,128,463
<DEPRECIATION>                                 891,943
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,661,817
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,983,063
<BONDS>                                        398,517
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       723,556
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,969,065
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,661,817
<SALES>                                      3,670,092
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,142,413
<CGS>                                          324,925
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,646,248
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               158,135
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              48,452
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,166,257
<INCOME-TAX>                                   408,190
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            758,067
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   758,067
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
FORM 10-QSB AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
       
<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                     418,212
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               82,421
<ALLOWANCES>                                12,000
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           768,570
<PP&E>                                     101,657
<DEPRECIATION>                             101,657
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           2,732,084
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      483,210
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    63,235
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                               2,085,639
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             2,732,084
<SALES>                                    432,294
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           432,294
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              321,408
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (20,016)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           9,356
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             81,514
<INCOME-TAX>                                 5,982
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         75,532
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                75,532
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .01
        

</TABLE>
§ 223.25 List of affiliates. ( a ) Each carrier shall maintain at its principal office a list containing all of that carrier's affiliates, showing the exact relationship of each affiliate to the carrier.
( b ) No pass may be issued under § 223.22(a) to a director, officer, employee, or members of their immediate family, of any affiliate, unless that affiliate is on the list required by paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) The list required by paragraph (a) of this section shall be furnished to the Department upon request.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 3024-0002) [ER-1371, 48 FR 57118, Dec. 28, 1983, as amended by Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15930, Apr. 16, 2019]
§ 171.271 Installation requirements. ( a ) The ISMLS facility must be permanent in nature, located, constructed, and installed according to accepted good engineering practices, applicable electric and safety codes, FCC licensing requirements, and paragraphs (a) and (c) of § 171.261.
( b ) The ISMLS facility must have a reliable source of suitable primary power, either from a power distribution system or locally generated. Adequate power capacity must be provided for the operation of test and working equipment of the ISMLS.
( c ) The ISMLS facility must have a continuously engaged or floating battery power source for the ground station for continued normal operation if the primary power fails. A trickle charge must be supplied to recharge the batteries during the period of available primary power. Upon loss and subsequent restoration of power, the batteries must be restored to full charge within 24 hours. When primary power is applied, the state of the battery charge may not affect the operation of the ISMLS ground station. The battery must permit continuation of normal operation for at least two hours under the normal operating conditions. The equipment must meet all specification requirements with or without batteries installed.
( d ) There must be a means for determining, from the ground, the performance of the equipment including antennae, both initially and periodically.
( e ) The facility must have, or be supplemented by, ground-air or landline communications services. At facilities within or immediately adjacent to controlled airspace and that are intended for use as instrument approach aids for an airport, there must be ground-air communications or reliable communications (at least a landline telephone) from the airport to the nearest Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control or communication facility. Compliance with this paragraph need not be shown at airports where an adjacent Federal Aviation Administration facility can communicate with aircraft on the ground at the airport and during the entire proposed instrument approach procedure. In addition, at low traffic density airports within or immediately adjacent to controlled airspace, and where extensive delays are not a factor, the requirements of this paragraph may be reduced to reliable communications (at least a landline telephone) from the airport to the nearest Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control or communications facility, if an adjacent Federal Aviation Administration facility can communicate with aircraft during the proposed instrument approach procedure, at least down to the minimum en route altitude for the controlled area.
( f ) Except where no operationally harmful interference will result, at locations where two separate ISMLS facilities serve opposite ends of a single runway, an interlock must ensure that only the facility serving the approach direction in use can radiate.
[Doc. No. 14120, 40 FR 36110, Aug. 19, 1975, as amended by Amdt. 171-16, 56 FR 65665, Dec. 17, 1991]
§ 152.313 Property management standards. ( a ) The sponsor shall establish and maintain property management standards in accordance with Attachment N of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-102 (42 FR 45828) for the utilization and disposition of property furnished by the Federal Government, or acquired in whole or in part by the sponsor with Federal funds.
( b ) A sponsor may use its own property management standards and procedures as long as the standards required by paragraph (a) of this section are included.
#### MALAVAZOS v. THE STATE.

(Decided April 22, 1915.)

Appeal from Birmingham City Court.

Heard before Hon. Charles W. Ferguson.

C. B. Powell, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney General, and M. M. Ullman, for State.

Per curiam.

Dismissed without prejudice.
# Official Journal C 309/7 De

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 309 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 487 December 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 309

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 487 December 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 309/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2005/C 309/2 | Information procedure — Technical rules (1) | 2 |
| 2005/C 309/3 | Notification by the Hungarian Government under Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorizations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons (1) | 8 |
| 2005/C 309/4 | Communication from Ireland pursuant to Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons — Announcement of 2006 Licensing Round — Slyne, Erris and Donegal Basins (1) | 9 |
| 2005/C 309/5 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3974 — Johnson Controls/York) (1) | 10 |
| 2005/C 309/6 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3752 — Verizon/MCI) (1) | 10 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2005/C 309/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2005/C 309/2

Information procedure — Technical rules (1)

2

2005/C 309/3

Notification by the Hungarian Government under Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorizations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons (1)

8

2005/C 309/4

Communication from Ireland pursuant to Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons — Announcement of 2006 Licensing Round — Slyne, Erris and Donegal Basins (1)

9

2005/C 309/5

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3974 — Johnson Controls/York) (1)

10

2005/C 309/6

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3752 — Verizon/MCI) (1)

10

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
July 16, 2010

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Economic Impact Analysis for National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions : Group I Polymers and Resins

FROM: Tom Walton

Economist ABCG (C439-02)

TO: Randy McDonald Engineer CCG (E143-01)

This document addresses the economic impact s of the national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants for seven facilit ies in the resin and synthetic rubber manufacturing industry for both the selected option and an another option (option 2).

This is classified under 32521 in the Nort h American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

Both the magnitude of control costs needed to comply with the rule and the distribution of these costs among affected f acilities can have a role in determining how the market will change in response to rule. Total a nnualized costs for the selected option are estimated to be about $1,000,000 and for option 2, $8,600,000. Seven facilities are projected to incur costs that range from less than $1,000 for both options and to $600,000 for the selected option and to $4,800,000 for option 2.

Because facility sales and production were unavailable, average facility value of shipments from their state from American FactFinder for 2007 for facilities in Texas and Louisiana for NAICS 32521 was used as a proxy for sales. Because state data were not reported for the other states 2002 Census data for average value of shipments per facility for the nation was used as a proxy for the two facilities not in Texas or Louisiana (the

two Zeon Chemicals facilities.

For the selected option costs are all projected to be less than three tenths of a percent of average sales. For option 2 tw o facilities have costs between 1% and 2% of sales. For the selected option, the small costs are not expected to re sult in a significant market impact whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed.

The Small Business Administration definition for a small business in this industry is 1,000 employees. None of the facilities that may be owned by small businesses have costto sales ratio of greater than 0.0003%. Th erefore there is no significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Total Annual Costs ($/yr) Cost to Sales Cost to Sales

Facility Selected Option Option 2 Selected Option Option 2

Lanxess

Corporation $982 $982 0.0003% 0.0003%

Zeon Chemicals L.P. $982 $982 0.0016% 0.0016%
$982 $1,104,543 0.0016% 1.7876%

Lion Copolymer $982 $982 0.0003% 0.0003%

DuPont

Performance $982 $4,816,013 0.0003% 1.5818%

ExxonMobil $415,940 $415,940 0.1297% 0.1297% $641,500 $2,248,079 0.2107% 0.7384%
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Cosine Communications, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Terry
Gibson, Director, President and 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, to my 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.





/s/  Terry
      R. GibsonTerry
      R. GibsonDirector,
      Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerFebruary
      17, 2009
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: 11/14/14

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: Ray Saracino, EPA Region 9

SUBJECT: November 14, 2014 Meeting with Arizona Electric Power Cooperative (AEPCO)

Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

SUMMARY

A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on November 14, 2014

to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Clean Power Plan for 

Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014 and published in the Federal Register on 

June 18, 2014.

ATTENDEES

External Stakeholders

Michele Freeark, AEPCO

Pete Scott, AEPCO

Eric Hiser, Jordan Bischoff & Hiser, P.L.C

EPA 

Amy Zimpfer

Colleen McKaughn

Ben Machol

Ann Lyons

Ray Saracino

Attachment

111(d) Docket Memo Attachment_AEPCO Non-CBI Comments to EPA 2014-09-29
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3870 

To require the Secretary of Defense to recommend a minimum number 

of bomber aircraft. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 3, 2020 

Mr. ROUNDS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Defense to recommend a 

minimum number of bomber aircraft. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Long Range Bomber 

5 Expansion Act of 2020’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MINIMUM BOMBER AIRCRAFT FORCE LEVEL. 

7 Not later than February 1, 2021, the Secretary of 

8 Defense shall submit to the congressional defense commit9 tees recommendations for a minimum number of bomber 

10 aircraft, including penetrating bombers in addition to B– 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3870 IS

1 52H aircraft, to enable the Air Force to carry out its long2 range strike mission. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### § 171.71 Materials incorporated by reference.

Copies of standards, recommended practices and documents incorporated by reference in this part are available for the use of interested persons at any FAA Regional Office and FAA Headquarters. An historical file of these materials is maintained at Headquarters, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20590.

[Amdt. 171-8, 36 FR 5584, Mar. 25, 1971]
###### Editorial Note on Part 221

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 221 appear at 84 FR 15929, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 221.1 Applicability of this part.

All tariffs and amendments to tariffs of air carriers and foreign air carriers filed with the Department pursuant to chapter 415 of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII shall be constructed, published, filed, posted and kept open for public inspection in accordance with the regulations in this part and orders of the Department.