alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Calendar No. 41

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 416

AN ACT

To extend the period during which chapter 12 of

fect, and for other purposes.title 11 of the United States Code remains in efMARCH 19 (legislative day, MARCH 3), 1993

Read twice and ordered placed on the calendar
II

Calendar No. 41

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 416

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 18 (legislative day, MARCH 3), 1993

Received

MARCH 19 (legislative day, MARCH 3), 1993

Read twice and ordered placed on the calendar

AN ACT

To extend the period during which chapter 12 of title 11

of the United States Code remains in effect, and for

other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME PERIOD.

4 The first sentence of section 302(f) of the Bank5 ruptcy Judges, United States Trustees, and Family Farm6 er Bankruptcy Act of 1986 (Public Law 99–554; 100

7 Stat. 3124) is amended by striking ‘‘1993’’ and inserting

8 ‘‘1998’’.
2

•HR 416 PCS

1 SEC. 2. FILING OF PLAN.

2 Section 1221 of title 11, United States Code, is

3 amended by striking ‘‘an extension is substantially justi4 fied’’ and inserting ‘‘the need for an extension is attrib5 utable to circumstances for which the debtor should not

6 justly be held accountable’’.

7 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT

8 MADE BY SECTION 2.

9 (a) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Except as provided in sub10 section (b), this Act and the amendments made by this

11 Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this

12 Act.

13 (b) APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT MADE BY SEC14 TION 2.—The amendment made by section 2 shall not

15 apply with respect to cases commenced under title 11 of

16 the United States Code before the date of the enactment

17 of this Act.

Passed the House of Representatives March 16,

1993.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
#### § 105-74.670 Suspension.

*Suspension* means an action taken by a Federal agency that immediately prohibits a recipient from participating in Federal Government procurement contracts and covered nonprocurement transactions for a temporary period, pending completion of an investigation and any judicial or administrative proceedings that may ensue. A recipient so prohibited is suspended, in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation for procurement contracts (48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4) and the common rule, Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement), that implements Executive Order 12549 and Executive Order 12689. Suspension of a recipient is a distinct and separate action from suspension of an award or suspension of payments under an award.
Ron Cuny, Regional Administrator 

Mary Fallin 

Office of the Governor 

State of Oklahoma 

March 4, 20 13 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Region VI 

1445 Ross A venue, Suite 1200 

Dallas, TX 75202 

Dear Mr. Cuny: 

In accordance with Section 404(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act, I am forwarding an application for 

authorization of the Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair, and Painting Progran1 of Oklahoma. I believe you will 

find the application contains the provisions necessary to implement an effective Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Program. The Oklahoma Depa1tment of Environmental Quality (DEQ) will be the state agency responsible for 

administering the program in Oklahoma. 

I hereby ce11ify in accordance with Section 404(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act and 40 C.F.R. § 745.324, 

that in my opinion, and based on the analysis conducted as part of this application, the laws of the State of 

Oklahoma as described in this application are at least as protective as the Federal program for the training and 

ce1tification of lead-based paint professionals found at 40 C.F.R. § 745 and provide DEQ with the requisite 

authority to enforce compliance with such State programs. 

If you find you require ftnther information, please contact Steven A. Thompson, Executive Director of the DEQ. 

Thank you for your assistance. 

Enclosures 

cc: Eddie Terrill 

Steve Thompson 

Sincerely, 

Mmy Fallin 

Govemor 

\'( 1//: C:II'//(If. hli/1/lf,\ <; • )JIXI.\' I./XI 0/S/if.l /l,.\/ /IL'f! • I!A./. 1/IO.If. l('ffl.IJA'f !/fll\1.1 "3/115- /VI / • (1115} 5!1·131! • fo: l \ (IW) 5! f-J.HJ
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT
TO SECURED CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTES


 


This
Amendment to Secured Convertible Promissory Notes (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of December
31,2016 among Bone Biologics Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on the one hand, and Hankey
Capital, LLC (“HCL”) and The Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation (“MTF”), on the other
hand.


 


RECITALS


 


 A.       The
Company entered into a Note Purchase Agreement dated as of October 14,2016 with HCL and MTF pursuant to which each of HCL and
MTF loaned to the Company the principal amount of $600,000 as evidenced by a Secured Convertible Promissory Note issued by the
Company (collectively, the “Notes”) to each of HCL and MTF.


 


B.       The
Company and each of HCL and MTF desire to amend the Notes as set forth herein.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which hereby
are acknowledged, the Company and each of HCL and MTF hereby agree as follows:


 


1.       Section
1 of each Note hereby is amended by changing the Maturity Date as set forth therein to December 31, 2017.


 


2.       Except
as expressly amended by this Amendment, all of the terms of the Notes shall remain in full force and effect.


 


3.       This
Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, including by facsimile, by e-mail in PDF format or by other electronic
means, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed and delivered this Amendment as of the date first written above.


 


	 	Bone
    Biologics Corporation
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	Name:	Stephen
    LaNeve
	 	Title:	President
	 	 	 
	 	Hankey
    Capital, LLC
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	Name:	 
	 	Title:	 
	 	 	 
	 	The
    Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	Name:	 
	 	Title:	 


 




    	1
##### 



Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 consolidated financial condition and results of operations of Allied.
 /s/ Robert P. Dowski
    
    /s/ John J. MarcelloRobert P. Dowski
    
    John J. MarcelloChief Financial Officer and Treasurer
    
    Chief Executive Officer and PresidentOctober 18, 2006
    
    October 18, 2006
  35
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

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

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-51238 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DESIDERIO RIVERA-URBINA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-01-CR-512-ALL 

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

June 19, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Desiderio Rivera-Urbina appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He

contends that the sentence is invalid because it exceeds the

two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a). Rivera-Urbina complains that his sentence was

improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on

his prior deportation following an aggravated felony conviction. 

He argues that the sentencing provision violates the Due Process
No. 01-51238 

-2-

Clause. Alternatively, Rivera-Urbina contends that 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) define separate offenses. He

argues that the aggravated felony conviction that resulted in his

increased sentence was an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) that should have been alleged in his indictment. 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Rivera-Urbina acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). This court

must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court

itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an

appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
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.                  

###### Federal Housing Finance Board

# TIME AND DATE:

 10 a.m., Friday, June 23, 2000. 

# PLACE:

 Board Room, Second Floor, Federal Housing Finance Board, 1777 F Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006. 

# STATUS: 

The entire meeting will be open to the public. 

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED DURING PORTIONS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC: 

 
      - Final Rule: Amendments to Membership Regulation and Advances Regulation.
      - Final Rule: Election of Federal Home Loan Bank Directors.
      - Resolution Required by Section 608 of the Federal Home Loan Bank Modernization Act Certifying that Withdrawal of Bank System Members will not cause the Bank System to fail to meet its REFCorp Obligations.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Elaine L. Baker, Secretary to the Board, (202) 408-2837. 

William W. Ginsberg,

Managing Director.

[FR Doc. 00-16009 Filed 6-20-00; 4:59 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6725-01-P
219P15

#### State v. William Lowery, Jr.

Def’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of COA (COAP15-385)

Denied
Argued and submitted May 18,

remanded in part and otherwise affirmed on appeal and cross-appeal July 12, 1995

#### In the Matter of the Marriage of William Jerry WESLEY, *Appellant - Cross-Respondent, and*Linda Claire Stafford WESLEY, *Respondent - Cross-Appellant.*

(88-2411-D-3; CA A85497)

898 P2d 262

Thomas C. Howser argued the cause for appellant - cross-respondent. On the briefs were Scott A. Norris and Howser & Munsell, P.C.

Christine Sanz argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent - cross-appellant.

Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Hasel-ton, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*491PER CURIAM

This appeal is the second arising from the August 1989 dissolution of the parties’ 22-year marriage. In father’s first appeal, we entered a spousal support award of $50 per month and remanded for recalculation of child support. *Wesley and Wesley,*125 Or App 128, 865 P2d 432 (1993). Before reconsideration on remand, mother moved to modify spousal and child support as of January 3, 1994. The trial court heard both the remand and mother’s motion at the same time. On the remand, the court found that father’s presumed child support amount had not been rebutted under the guidelines. On mother’s motion, the trial court awarded $704 per month in child support and $500 per month spousal support. Father appeals from the order on mother’s motion; mother cross-appeals from the order on remand and the order on her motion.

Only one of the parties’ assignments of error requires discussion. Both argue that the trial court erred in not including interest and dividends in gross income for purposes of calculating child support on mother’s motion. That is correct. Gross income includes pensions, dividends and interest income. OAR 137-50-340.

On appeal and cross-appeal, order on mother’s motion for modification remanded for recalculation of child support; otherwise affirmed. No costs to either party.
§ 102-74.285 How must Federal agencies assign priority to parking spaces in controlled areas? Federal agencies must reserve official parking spaces, in the following order of priority, for— ( a ) Official postal vehicles at buildings containing the U.S. Postal Service's mailing operations;
( b ) Federally owned vehicles used to apprehend criminals, fight fires and handle other emergencies;
( c ) Private vehicles owned by Members of Congress (but not their staffs);
( d ) Private vehicles owned by Federal judges (appointed under Article III of the Constitution), which may be parked in those spaces assigned for the use of the Court, with priority for them set by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts;
( e ) Other Federally owned and leased vehicles, including those in motor pools or assigned for general use;
( f ) Service vehicles, vehicles used in child care center operations, and vehicles of patrons and visitors (Federal agencies must allocate parking for disabled visitors whenever an agency's mission requires visitor parking); and
( g ) Private vehicles owned by employees, using spaces not needed for official business.
However, in major metropolitan areas, Federal agencies may determine that allocations by zone would make parking more efficient or equitable, taking into account the priority for official parking set forth in this section.
§ 109-50.402 Submission of proposals. Proposals involving programmatic disposals of DOE personal property located in mixed facilities to contractors operating that facility shall be forwarded through the appropriate program organization to the Property Executive, for review and processing for approval. Each such request shall include all information necessary for a proper evaluation of the proposal. The proposal shall include, as a minimum: ( a ) The purpose of the mixed facility;
( b ) The description, condition, acquisition cost, and present use of the DOE personal property involved.
( c ) The programmatic benefits which could accrue to DOE from the disposal to the contractor (including the considerations which become important if the disposal is not made);
( d ) The appraised value of the DOE personal property (preferably by independent appraisers); and
( e ) The proposed terms and conditions of disposal including: ( 1 ) Price;
( 2 ) Priority to be given work for DOE requiring the use of the transferred property, and including the basis for any proposed charge to DOE for amortizing the cost of plant and equipment items;
( 3 ) Recapture of the property if DOE foresees a possible future urgent need; and
( 4 ) Delivery of the property, whether “as is-where is,” etc.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE18, UNITED STATES CODE

 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002

 

Pursuant toSection 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned, the President and Chief Executive Officer of AmericanScience & Engineering, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certifythat to the undersigned’s knowledge:

 

1.                                       the Company’sReport on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (“10-Q”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934: and

 

2.                                       the informationcontained in the Company’s 10-Q being filed fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company

 

Date: November 3, 2004

 

 
|   | /s/ Anthony R. Fabiano                                   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Anthony R. FabianoPresident and Chief Executive  Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to American Science & Engineering, Inc. andwill be retained by American Science & Engineering, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
# Comments on: 21-1807: TQ DELTA, LLC v. ARRIS GROUP, INC. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential
#### § 102-75.935 What are disposal agencies' responsibilities concerning public sales?

Disposal agencies must make available by competitive public sale any surplus property that is not disposed of by public benefit discount conveyance or by negotiated sale. Awards must be made to the responsible bidder whose bid will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.
§ 302-11.421 What must we consider when authorizing an extension of time limitation? When authorizing an extension of time limitation, you must determine that the: ( a ) Employee has extenuating circumstances which have prevented the employee from completing their sale and purchase or lease termination transactions in the initial authorized time frame of one year; and
( b ) Employee's residence transactions are reasonably related to the employee's transfer of official station.
[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2011-01, 76 FR 18343, Apr. 1, 2011; FTR Case 2022-05, 89 FR 12256, Feb. 16, 2024]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          2,543
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  21,762
<ALLOWANCES>                                    1,193
<INVENTORY>                                   106,007
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              131,077
<PP&E>                                        112,865
<DEPRECIATION>                                 20,459
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                268,819
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         103,529
<BONDS>                                       160,356
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          70,682
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          105
<OTHER-SE>                                   (71,751)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  268,819
<SALES>                                       201,256
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              201,256
<CGS>                                          99,407
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  70,751
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               21,805
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             20,708
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 9,293
<INCOME-TAX>                                    3,516
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             5,777
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    5,777
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.09)


</TABLE>
No. 10-10735.

#### Cardona *v.*California.

Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.
No. 10-10943.

#### Thomas *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### James Pearsall, appellee, v. Columbus Creamery Company, appellant.

Filed April 16, 1895.

No. 5757.

Mechanics’ Liens: Evidence : Review. This case involves n'o disputed question of law. The evidence examined, and *held*to support the finding and decree of the district court, and the judgment appealed from is accordingly affirmed.

Appeal from the district court of Platte county.. Heard below before Marshall, J.

*Whitmoyer & Gondring,*for appellant.

*J. G. Reeder, contra.*

Ragan C.

James Pearsall brought this action in the district court ■of Platte county against the Columbus Creamery Company. The object of the action was to have established and foreclosed a lien for labor and materials which Pearsall alleged he had furnished the Creamery Company for the erection of an improvement on certain real estate belonging *834to it. Pearsall had a decree and the Creamery Company has appealed. A large part of the claim of Pearsall was-for extras. The defenses of the Creamery Company were that Pearsall had not completed the building within the time agreed under his contract, by which the Creamery Company had been delayed in the manufacture of butter and thereby damaged; that the building was not constructed of proper material and in the proper manner; and that it was not liable to Pearsall for the extras claimed. The evidence on all the litigated issues was conflicting. The appeal presents no question of law. The evidence sustains the finding and decree of the district court, and it must, therefore, be and is accordingly

Affirmed.
From: DocketBird

Sent: 12/12/2022 3:12:37 PM

To: Docket

Subject: New filing in JIMENEZ v. JACKSON HEALTH SYSTEM: ORDER SCHEDULING VIDEO 

STATUS CONFERENCES, (flsd-1:2021-cv-23839)

Attachments: DE 0019. ORDER SCHEDULING VIDEO STATUS CONFERENCES (Status Conference 

set for 12192022 03-00 PM before Jud (2022.12.12).pdf

Dear Joel,

A document has been filed in a case you are following on DocketBird.

Case: JIMENEZ v. JACKSON HEALTH SYSTEM (flsd-1:2021-cv-23839)

Court: Southern District of Florida

19. ORDER SCHEDULING VIDEO STATUS CONFERENCES, (Status Conference 

set for 12/19/2022 03:00 PM before Judge Roy K. Altman.) Signed by Judge 

Roy K. Altman on 12/12/2022. See attached document for full details.

This notification was sent to the following email addresses associated with your company: docket@sriplaw.com 

You can view the docket sheet in this case by clicking the link above, or by logging into your 

DocketBird account.

If you need any help, don't hesitate to let us know.

Thanks,

Team DocketBird

DocketBird ID: 2022/12/12/[$LATEST]6bc45698806c4c2f99db0b5dc07b4b51|rjm07r9mqcrqp9nvtagfjrln37s43iflgftmglg1

Tired of these notifications? You can turn them off in your DocketBird Case Management Settings.

Case 1:22-cv-23699-RKA Document 21-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/23/2022 Page 1 of 2
Made by Mink LLC

Las Vegas, NV

Case 1:22-cv-23699-RKA Document 21-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/23/2022 Page 2 of 2