alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Sixth Amendment to Purchase Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.50 
 SIXTH AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT 
 This Sixth Amendment to Purchase Agreement
(“Amendment”) is made by and between the Kirk & Blum Manufacturing Company (“Purchaser”) and Buckley Properties Co. (“Seller”) under the following circumstances: 
 A. Purchase and Seller are parties to that certain Purchase Agreement dated September 6, 2005 (“Purchase Agreement”) pursuant to which
Seller agreed to sell, and Purchaser agreed to purchase, certain real property more particularly described in the Purchase Agreement, all upon the terms and conditions contained therein; 
 B. Pursuant to Section 8(d) through (h) of the Purchase Agreement, Purchaser’s obligation to close the transaction contemplated by the
Purchase Agreement is subject to certain contingencies, none of which have occurred; and 
 C. Purchaser and Seller heretofore amended the
Purchase Agreement by written amendments dated November 15, 2005, November 30, 2005, December 15, 2005, January 13, 2006 and February 1, 2006; and 
 D. Purchaser and Seller each desire to enter into this Sixth Amendment to extend the period of time within which Purchaser may satisfy the contingencies
contained in Section 8(d) through (h) of the Purchase Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth herein. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing premises, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Purchase and Seller hereby agree as follows: 
 1. Purchaser waives the contingencies contained in Sections 8(a), (b), and (c) of the Purchase Agreement, provided Seller cures Purchaser’s
objections contained in Purchaser’s correspondence dated October 20, 2005 and October 21, 2005 to Purchaser’s sole satisfaction. 
 2. Section 4(a) of the Purchase Agreement as previously amended is further amended by deleting the date “February 17, 2006” and replacing it with the date “March 10, 2006”, and any reference
to “Closing” or “date of Closing” shall mean March 10, 2006. 
 3. The period of time in which Seller has to notify
Purchaser of which matters it will cure and how of those previously objected to by Purchaser following the Inspection Period, as set forth in the subject Agreement, is hereby further extended through March 10, 2006. 
 4. Except as further amended, modified or altered hereby, the Purchase Agreement as heretofore amended is not otherwise amended, modified or altered, and
each of the parties hereto ratifies, affirms and confirms each and every provision of the Purchase Agreement, as amended hereby. 







 Dated this /15th/ day of February, 2006. 
  

			
	PURCHASER:
	
	The Kirk & Blum Manufacturing Company
		
	By:	 	 /s/ L. John Bertoli, III

		 	L. John Bertoli, III, Vice President
	
	SELLER:
	
	Buckley Properties Co.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Thomas Strotman

		 	Tom Strotman, Treasurer
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 20, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-30103

Summary Calendar

 

WILLIAM JAMES MITCHELL,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

CARL CASTERLINE,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 02-CV-1838-A

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

Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

William James Mitchell, federal prisoner No. 84559-020,

appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. In June

1993, Mitchell was convicted of controlled substance and firearms

offenses in the United States District Court for the Middle

District of Georgia, and he was sentenced to a 300-month term of

imprisonment, enhanced by a prior controlled substance

conviction. Mitchell is currently incarcerated in the Western
No. 03-30103

-2-

District of Louisiana. Mitchell has challenged his sentence

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, without success.

Mitchell argues the trial court lacked jurisdiction to

impose an enhanced sentence because the Government did not

properly serve Michell with the enhancement information as

required by 21 U.S.C. § 851(a) and because the court failed to

comply with the requirements of 21 U.S.C. § 851(b) prior to

imposing sentence. Because Mitchell’s petition raises errors

that allegedly occurred at his sentencing, it must be construed

as sounding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 unless Mitchell establishes

that his claims fall under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255. Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000). The

savings clause applies where “the remedy by motion is inadequate

or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255.

Mitchell has not attempted to establish that he is entitled

to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 via the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 savings

clause. See Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary Beaumont, TX, 305 F.3d

343, 347 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 1374 (2003). 

Consequently, he is not entitled to § 2241 relief, and his

petition must either be dismissed or construed as a § 2255

motion. Pack, 218 F.3d at 452-53. 

As claims arising under § 2255 must be heard in the

sentencing court, the District Court for the Western District of

Louisiana lacked jurisdiction to construe Mitchell’s pleadings as
No. 03-30103

-3-

a § 2255 motion. See § 2255. Furthermore, Mitchell has

previously filed a motion under § 2255 and he has not obtained 

certification to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. See

Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 898-99 (5th Cir.

2001). Moreover, Mitchell has not made any showing that his

petition satisfies the applicable requirements for such a motion. 

See Henderson v. Haro, 282 F.3d 862, 864 (5th Cir. 2002).

Accordingly, the dismissal of Mitchell’s § 2241 petition is

AFFIRMED.
Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to e.;rplain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): 

Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a ·'significant regulatory action"? G. 

YES* 0 NO IZI 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? ~ 

YES* 0 NO IZI 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

e ither a Yes or No answer. -

YES 0 NO IZI 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode oftranspm1ation? • 

YES* 0 NO IZI 

*Explanation:
§ 512.16 Class determinations. ( a ) The Chief Counsel may issue class determinations of categories of information to be entitled to confidential treatment if the Chief Counsel determines that one or more characteristics common to each item of information in that class, will, in most cases, result in identical treatment, and further that it is appropriate to treat all such items as a class for one or more purposes under this part. Once a class determination is made, the Chief Counsel will publish the new class determination in the Federal Register.
( b ) The Chief Counsel may amend, modify, or terminate any class determination established under this section. These changes will be published in the Federal Register.
( c ) Class determinations made by the Chief Counsel are listed in Appendices B and C to this Part.
( d ) A class determination may state that all of the information in the class: ( 1 ) Is or is not governed by a particular section of this part or by a particular set of substantive criteria of this part;
( 2 ) Satisfies one or more of the applicable substantive criteria; or
( 3 ) Satisfies one or more of the substantive criteria, but only for a certain period of time.
1210-AB32-2-1144.html[7/24/2015 6:36:46 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvq-3s74

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1638

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: megan rasmussen rasmussen

General Comment

I am smart enough to plan for my own retirement. We do NOT need any more regulations!
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 9/20/15 10:04 AM

Received: September 19, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8l83-7ldr

Comments Due: September 24, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; 

Notice of proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0204

Definition of the Term Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule- Retirement Investment Advice

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-5302

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-08831

Submitter Information

Name: Reinout Van Wagtendonk

General Comment

I am opposed to the EBSA rule proposal to possibly end options trading by qualified individuals 

in their self directed IRA- accounts. 

Options trading - covered call and cash secured put writing and some spread constructions - has 

been a tool for me for many years to achieve growth in my retirement accounts. I know the risks 

involved, I consider myself qualified, I keep careful track of my trades and I emphatically do not 

think the government should be able to limit my ability to build up my retirement savings 

through free participation in a free market as I see fit. 

The government already requires that individuals wishing to trade options in their IRA-accounts 

pass certain qualifications. Sharpen those if you must, but do not decide for me that relatively 

conservative investment strategies involving options are suddenly no longer appropriate. I have 

depended on options trading in years past to grow my retirement balance and I want to be able to 

keep doing that.

Thank you,

Reinout van Wagtendonk

Lee, Massachusetts
1210-AB32-2-1369.html[7/26/2015 2:34:39 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jw0-962k

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1865

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

Address: United States, 

General Comment

I do not need anyone to tell me how to invest or use MY money that I have worked very hard for period.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 4.2

          Amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation of the Company,
          filed with the Delaware Secretary of State on March 30, 2004

<PAGE>

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                       CHROMAVISION MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.

         CHROMAVISION MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., a corporation organized and
existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware (the "Corporation"), does hereby certify as follows:

FIRST: That at a meeting of the board of directors held on February 17, 2004, a
resolution was duly adopted setting forth a proposed amendment to the
Certificate of Incorporation of the Company, declaring said amendment to be
advisable and calling for consideration of said proposed amendment by the
stockholders of the Company. The resolution setting forth the amendment is as
follows:

         RESOLVED, that the first sentence of Article 4 of the Certificate of
Incorporation be amended to read as follows:

         4. The aggregate number of shares that the corporation shall have
authority to issue is One Hundred Eight Million (108,000,000) shares, of which
One Hundred Million (100,000,000) shares are of one class and are designated as
Common Stock and the par value of each share is One Cent ($.01); and Eight
Million (8,000,000) shares are of one class and are designated as Preferred
Stock and the par value of each share is One Cent ($.01).

SECOND: That thereafter, pursuant to the resolution of the board of directors,
the proposed amendment was approved by the stockholders of the Company by
written consent dated February 27, 2004.

THIRD: That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of
Section 242 and 228 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ChromaVision Medical Systems, Inc. has caused this
certificate to be executed by Stephen T.D. Dixon, its Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer and duly authorized officer, as of March 30, 2004.

                                         CHROMAVISION MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.

                                         /s/ Stephen T.D. Dixon
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Name: Stephen T.D. Dixon
                                         Title: Executive Vice President and
                                                Chief Financial Officer
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsFull-scale semispan tests of a business-jet wing with a natural laminar flow airfoilA full-scale semispan model was investigated to evaluate and document the low-speed, high-lift characteristics of a business-jet class wing that utilized the HSNLF(1)-0213 airfoil section and a single-slotted flap system. Also, boundary-layer transition effects were examined, a segmented leading-edge droop for improved stall/spin resistance was studied, and two roll-controlled devices were evaluated. The wind-tunnel investigation showed that deployment of single-slotted, trailing-edge flap was effective in providing substantial increments in lift required for takeoff and landing performance. Fixed-transition studies to investigate premature tripping of the boundary layer indicated no adverse effects in lift and pitching-moment characteristics for either the cruise or landing configuration. The full-scale results also suggested the need to further optimize the leading-edge droop design that was developed in the subscale tests.Document ID19910020784Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsHahne, David E.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Jordan, Frank L., Jr.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateSeptember 1, 1991Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.60:3133NASA-TP-3133L-16905Accession Number91N30098Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-61-41-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910020784.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
##### 



COMPREHENSIVE CARE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES Exhibit 31.2 Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, Robert J. Landis, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Comprehensive Care
Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material 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 annual
report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and 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 within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being
prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the 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 occurred during the registrants fourth 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 officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to 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s internal control
over financial reporting. /s/ ROBERT J. LANDISAugust 26, 2004
    Robert J. LandisChairman, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) 54
#### § 543.2 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to specify the content and format of petitions which may be filed by manufacturers of passenger motor vehicles to obtain an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the vehicle theft prevention standard for passenger motor vehicle lines which include, as standard equipment, an antitheft device if the agency concludes that the device is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements. This part also provides the procedures that the agency will follow in processing those petitions and in terminating or modifying exemptions.
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 73 FR 33329, June 12, 2008.

§ 40.86 What is urine validity testing, and are laboratories required to conduct it? ( a ) Specimen validity testing is the evaluation of the specimen to determine if it is consistent with normal human urine. The purpose of validity testing is to determine whether certain adulterants or foreign substances were added to the urine, if the urine was diluted, or if the specimen was substituted.
( b ) As a laboratory, you must conduct validity testing.
[65 FR 79526, Dec. 19, 2000, as amended at 66 FR 41951, Aug. 9, 2001; 73 FR 35970, June 25, 2008. Redesignated at 88 FR 27643, May 2, 2023]
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States governmentSkip to main content
end of header


Census.gov
                                    >                                
                                Business and Economy    >Retail - Monthly    >FAQs    >Quarterly E-Commerce FAQs
 Skip to looking for section Main	About	Information for Respondents	Data	Time Series/Trend Charts	Technical Documentation	Release Schedule	Definitions	FAQs	Contact Us Back to Our Surveys & Programs
 Main	About	Information for Respondents	Data	Time Series/Trend Charts	Technical Documentation	Release Schedule	Definitions	FAQs	Contact Us
                                Back to Our Surveys & Programs
  Quarterly E-Commerce Report FAQs
  General FAQs
  General Questions Related to the Quaterly E-Commerce Report
  Sample Revision FAQs
  Questions Related to the Quarterly E-Commerce Sample Revision
 Last Revised: June 09, 2020


CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
H. Res. 32

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

February 8, 2001.

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are

hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the

House of Representatives:

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET: Mr. Kirk.

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE: Mr. Bass to

rank after Mr. Radanovich.

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM: Mr. Weldon of

Florida, Mr. Cannon, Mr. Putnam, Mr. Otter, and Mr.

Schrock.

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES: Mr. Flake and Mr.

Rehberg.

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE: Mr. Shays to rank after Mrs.

Morella.

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE: Mr. Pombo and Mr. Hayes to rank after Mr. Isakson.
2

•HRES 32 EH

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS: Mr. Brown of

South Carolina.

Attest:

Clerk.
# April 23 USCENTCOM, Royal Jordanian Air Force Conduct Humanitarian Airdrops into Gaza

/ Published April 23, 2024

April 23, 2024Release Number 20240423-01FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

**TAMPA, Fla. –**U.S. Central Command and the Royal Jordanian Air Force conducted a combined humanitarian assistance airdrop into Northern Gaza on April 23, 2024, at 11:50 A.M. (Gaza time) to provide essential relief to civilians in Gaza affected by the ongoing conflict.   

The combined joint operation included Jordanian provided food and four U.S. Air Force C-130 aircraft. The U.S. C-130’s dropped 30,016 Meals Ready to Eat (MREs), providing life-saving humanitarian assistance in Northern Gaza.  Additionally, more than 6,000 pounds of Jordanian food supplies was also delivered. To date the U.S. has dropped nearly 1,041 tons of humanitarian assistance.

During today's mission, one of the bundles landed in the shallow water near shore. USCENTCOM does not assess civilian harm or damage to infrastructure at this time but continues to monitor the situation.

The DoD humanitarian airdrops contribute to ongoing U.S. and partner-nation government efforts to alleviate human suffering. These airdrops are part of a sustained effort, and we continue to plan follow-on aerial deliveries.