alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
10.2






AMENDMENT TO THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT AND RELEASE




THIS
AMENDMENT TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE ("Agreement"), dated as of
August 19, 2008, is by and among Material Technologies, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("MaTech") and Kreuzfeld Ltd., ("Kreuzfeld") (Kreuzfeld shall be
referred to as, the "Claimant") (individually, a "Party").




RECITALS




NOW THEREFORE,in
consideration of the promises and respective mutual agreements herein contained,
it is agreed by and between the Parties hereto as follows:




1.8            MaTech
hereby agrees to issue to Kreuzfeld warrants to purchase 5,000,000 shares of
MaTech common stock at $0.20 per share (together with the Kreuzfeld warrants,
the "Warrants");






IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the
Parties hereto have executed this Agreement, as of the date first written
hereinabove.






MATERIAL
      TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
                a
      Delaware corporation
              
              
              KREUZFELD
      LTD.,
                a
      Swiss corporation/s/
      Markus WinklerBy:
      Robert M. Bernstein
              
              
              By:
      Markus Winkler Its: Sole OfficerIts:
      Chief Executive Officer
              
              
              Its: 
      Sole Officer












[AMENDMENT
TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE SIGNATURE PACE]
Exhibit 32.3


                                  CERTIFICATION


     In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Booth Creek Ski Holdings,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 1, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  as the Executive Vice President and 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 my knowledge:

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

September 15, 2003


                                        By:/s/ ELIZABETH J. COLE
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                               Elizabeth J. Cole
                                          Executive Vice President and
                                           Chief Financial Officer
Attachment H

Work Sheets used to Calculate EPA Labor Costs

This attachment is available as part of the electronic docket for EPA ICR #0276.14 available at 

www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0617.

NAICS: 999100

Federal Executive Branch

Labor Category: Formula Managerial Technical Clerical

Unloaded Hourly Rate

1

= W $55.66 $36.11 $20.59

Benefits Percentage

2

Lb = B/W 44% 44% 44%

Benefits per hour B = W*Lb $24.74 $16.05 $9.15

Loaded Hourly Rate Wb = W + B =

W(1+Lb)

$80.40 $52.16 $29.74

Overhead Percentage3Lo = OH/Wb 50% 50% 50%

Overhead per hour OH = Wb*Lo $40.20 $26.08 $14.87

Fully Loaded Hourly

Rate

Wf = Wb + OH

= W + B + OH

$120.60 $78.24 $44.61

1. Data Source: BLS http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999100.htm May 2012 data

NAICS 999100 - Federal Executive Branch

Standard Occupational Codes:

Management: 11-0000, Management Occupations

Technical: 19-0000, Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations

Clerical: 43-0000, Office and Administrative Support Occupations

2. Fringe benefits/wage per hour.

3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth 

Edition, EPA-452-02-001, January 2002, pg. 2-34. The loading for indirect costs is within the 

range of 20-70% of the load labor rate (wage + benefits) suggested in EPA guidance.
February 6, 1956

No. 59720.—Suit 4840.

#### J. M. P. R. Trading Corp. and Alltransport, Inc. *v.*United States.

C. D. 1658 affirmed November 4, 1955. C. A. D. 600.
EX-10.74



 Exhibit 10.74 
 AMENDMENT 2 TO PROMISSORY NOTE 
 This Amendment to Promissory Note (the
“Amendment”) is entered into as of January 7, 2013 by and between eDiets.com, Inc. (“Maker”) and Lee S. Isgur (“Holder”). 
 WHEREAS, Maker executed and delivered to Holder that certain promissory note dated November 12, 2010 (the “Original Note”), payable to the order of Holder in the original principal amount
of Two Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($200,000.00), which Original Note evidences a loan in such original principal amount made by Holder to Maker; 
 WHEREAS, by Amendment dated December 1, 2011, Maker and Holder extended the maturity date of the Original Note to December 31, 2012; and 

WHEREAS, Maker and Holder again wish to amend the Original Note to extend the maturity date thereunder, 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, Maker and Holder hereby agree as follows: 
 1. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall
have the respective meanings set forth in the Original Note. 
 2. The entire outstanding principal balance of the Original
Note, together with all accrued and unpaid interest and charges thereon, shall be due and payable on June 30, 2013. 
 3.
Except as otherwise provided in this Amendment, all terms and provisions of the Original Note shall remain in full force and effect. 
 4. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois. 
 5. This Amendment shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and to their respective successors and assigns. 
 6. This Amendment may not be changed orally. 
 7. This Amendment may be executed
in multiple counterparts, and may be delivered by facsimile or other form of electronic transmission. Each counterpart, when so executed and delivered, shall be deemed an original, and all counterparts shall together constitute one and the same
instrument. 
 [REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Maker and Holder have duly executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above
written. 
  

									
	HOLDER:	 		 	MAKER:
			
		 		 	EDIETS.COM, INC.
				
	 /s/ Lee S. Isgur
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Kevin A Richardson, II

	LEE S. ISGUR	 		 		 	Name:	 	Kevin A. Richardson, II
		 		 		 	Title:	 	Chairman
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

PABLO ELIAS RAMOS

- ABARCA, AKA

Carlos Humberto Gonzales

- Guzman,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 19

- 10013

D.C. No. 2:18

- cr

- 01280

- JJT

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

John J

. Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 18, 2019 **

Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Pablo Elias Ramos

- Abarca appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty

- plea conviction and 30

- month sentence for ree ntry of a

removed alien , in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California

,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), Ramos

- Abarca ’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

SEP 25 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 19

- 10013

are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record.

We have provided Ramos

- Abarca the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental

brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Ramos

- Abarca waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our

independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United

States v. Watson , 582 F.3d 974, 986

- 88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss

the appeal. See id. at 988.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.
---

EXHIBIT 4

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the use of our reports dated February 18, 2005
  (which audit report expresses an unqualified opinion on the financial statements
  and includes Comments by Auditors on Canada-United States of America Reporting
  Differences when there are changes in accounting principles that have a material
  effect on the comparability of the financial statements such as described in
  note 2 to the consolidated financial statements), appearing in the Annual Report
  on Form 40-F of TransGlobe Energy Corporation for the year ended December 31,
  2004.

|March 28, 2005           | /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP                   
|------------------------ | --------------------------------------------
|Calgary, Alberta, Canada | Independent Registered Chartered Accountants

---
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 155 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 155

  Condemning the assassination of human rights advocate and outspoken 
  defender of freedom of the press, Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant 
                       Dink on January 19, 2007.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 12, 2007

 Mr. Crowley submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Condemning the assassination of human rights advocate and outspoken 
  defender of freedom of the press, Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant 
                       Dink on January 19, 2007.

Whereas, on January 19, 2007, Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink was 
        murdered as he exited the Istanbul, Turkey, office of Agos Newspaper;
Whereas Hrant Dink was a fierce defender of the freedom of the press and speech, 
        an outspoken advocate for democratic reform, and a champion of human 
        rights and tolerance;
Whereas Hrant Dink was a man of conviction and principle who believed in 
        democratic ideals and peaceful change;
Whereas, in Istanbul in 1996, Hrant Dink founded a bilingual newspaper called 
        Agos, in part to foster dialogue and understanding between Armenians and 
        Turks;
Whereas Hrant Dink was honored by his media colleagues around the world for his 
        courage and principles and was awarded the prestigious Bjornson Prize 
        for Literature for his publications;
Whereas Hrant Dink was prosecuted and convicted under Article 301 of the Turkish 
        Penal Code; and
Whereas the United States was founded on the principles of democracy and liberty 
        where freedom of expression is cherished and protected: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives--
            (1) strongly condemns and deplores the assassination of 
        Hrant Dink;
            (2) urges the Government of Turkey to continue its 
        investigation and prosecution of those individuals responsible 
        for the murder of Hrant Dink; and
            (3) urges the Government of Turkey to take appropriate 
        action to protect the freedom of speech in Turkey by repealing 
        Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code and by unswervingly 
        opposing intolerance, intimidation, and violence against 
        individuals who are exercising their natural right of freedom 
        of speech.
                                 <all>
```
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Hector Torres, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 115]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Synder, J.), rendered March 5, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 7 to 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

There is no merit to defendant’s claim in this "buy-and-bust” case that the prosecutor mischaracterized the defense theory and denigrated defense counsel during summation by arguing that the police witnesses had no reason to perjure themselves and that defense counsel’s argument that defendant was framed was "desperate”. These comments were fair response to defense counsel’s summation, which argued not only that defendant had been misidentified but that the police, instead *270of releasing defendant after realizing they had arrested the wrong man, persisted in the arrest in an effort to cover up their mistake *(People v Marks,*6 NY2d 67, 77-78, *cert denied*362 US 912). Defendant’s related claim that the prosecutor improperly accused defense counsel of attempting to confuse the jury was also properly responsive to defense counsel’s summation, and in any event did not exceed the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in summation *(People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396, 399). Defendant’s other claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rubin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.
|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Coupon | Interest | Maturity | Callable | Survivor's Option | Price | CUSIP |   |
| 3.300% | Semi-Annual(†††) | 3/15/2024 | No | Yes § | 100.00 | 14912HRB8 |   |

|                         |
|-------------------------|
|                         |  |  |
| (†††) | First Payment date 9/15/2014 |   |
|                    |   |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michelle M. Truesdail, Appellant.

[— NYS2d —]

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered September 20, 1994, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

In satisfaction of a superior court information charging her with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and was sentenced to a term of four months of weekends in jail and five years’ probation. Defendant’s appeal of her sentence as harsh and excessive is moot. Defendant has served her jail time and the probationary term imposed has been terminated as part of a negotiated plea in another matter.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot.
No. 66488.

#### Stern *&*Stern Textiles, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/15709 (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consist of point d’esprit net the same in all material respects as that the subject of *E. C. Carter & Son, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 368, C.D. 1889), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Home | Contact

Gas Grills Fireplace Logs Gas Heaters Gas Lights

Frequently Asked Questions

How much does it cost to have the fireplace logs or heater pilot light on?

A pilot light will burn approximately 1,000 BTU’s per hour (720,000 BTUs per month). 100 cu. ft. of gas (1 CCF) = 102,700 BTUs therefore the

pilot uses 7.01 CCFs per month Current cost per CCF of natural gas = $1.10* therefore the cost is about one penny per hour or $7.71 per month

How much does it cost to operate a gas fireplace?

The average gas log set will burn approximately 30,000 BTUs per hour. 100 cu. ft. of gas (1 CCF) = 102,700 BTUs therefore the log set uses

about .29211 CCFs per hour of operation.

Current cost per CCF of natural gas = $1.10 * therefore the cost is only $.32 per hour of operation!

How much will I save by installing gas logs or a gas heater?

A ventless gas log set or heater is over 99% efficient. The Hearth, Patio and Barbeque Association (http:/ /www.hpba.org/fuel-efficiencycalculator/) estimates that a homeowner can save approximately 300 CCF per year by heating the rooms the family occupies the most and

running the central heating system less. This equals approximately $300 per year at current retail natural gas prices*.

How much will I save by converting from a wood burning to a natural gas fireplace?

www.ehow.com estimates the costs savings to be approximately $200 per year assuming the annual usage is 100 hours and the average cost

of a cord of wood is $200.

How much does it cost to operate an outdoor gas lantern?

Outdoor gas lanterns use approximately 1,280 BTUs per hour (921,000 BTUs per month) 100 cu. ft. of gas (1 CCF) = 102,700 BTUs therefore

the lantern uses 8.97 CCFs per month Current cost per CCF of natural gas = $1.10* therefore the cost is $9.87 per month.

* The current natural gas price is based on January 2011 Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania rates including Gas Cost, Distribution Charges and Gas Supply Charges.

Gas Grills | Fireplace Logs | Gas Heaters | Gas Lanterns | Home | Contact

Copyright © 1996-2009 PGG&H Company, LLC. All rights reserved

PA Home Improvement Contractor Registration Number PA 062908

Monday

Tuesday - Friday

Saturday

9:30am to 7:00pm

9:30am to 5:00pm

9:30am to 4:00pm

42 Old Clairton Road

Pittsburgh, PA 15236 [see map]

p: 412-655-7444 / e: info@pittsburghgasgrills.com

Contact Us | Pittsburgh Gas Grill & Heater Co. http://www.pittsburghgasgrill.com/faq.html

1 of 1 1/31/2012 11:03 AM
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





The
undersigned, Amir Elbaz, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Dynamic
Applications, Corp (the “Company”), certifies, under the standards set forth and
solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-K fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.





Dated:
January 26, 2009





By:
              /s/ Amir ElbazName:
      Amir ElbazTitle:
      President and, Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO18 UNITED STATES CODE SS. 1350**

 

**In connection with the Quarterly Report ofGriffin Land & Nurseries, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended May 28, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Periodic Report”), I, Frederick M.Danziger, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:**

 

**1.**             The Periodic Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

**2.**             The information containedin the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| ** ** | ** **                                 | **/s/  FREDERICK M. DANZIGER** |
|------------|--------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
| ** ** | **Frederick  M. Danziger**                 |
| ** ** | **President  and Chief Executive Officer** |
| ** ** | **November 1**, 2005                       |

 

----
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


      We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in
      Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-6131) and
      related Prospectus of Cover-All Technologies Inc. (formerly Warner
      Insurance Services, Inc.) for the registration of 6,591,528 shares of its
      common stock and to the incorporation by reference therein of our report
      dated April 11, 1997, with respect to the consolidated financial
      statements and schedule of Cover-All Technologies Inc. included in its
      Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996, filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

      We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
      Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-18243) pertaining to the 1982 Incentive Stock
      Option Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-44270)
      pertaining to the 1991 Key Employee Stock Option Plan, the 1988 Non-
      Employee Director Stock Option Plan and certain Non-Qualified Stock
      Option Contracts, and in the related Prospectuses of Cover-All
      Technologies Inc. of our report dated April 11, 1997, with respect to the
      consolidated financial statements and schedule of Cover-All Technologies
      Inc. included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
      December 31, 1996, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



                                              /s/ Ernst & Young, LLP
                                              ------------------------
                                              Ernst & Young LLP


      Hackensack, New Jersey
      April 11, 1997
From: jojostarbuck777@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:54:22 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Alicia Jo Gertler

Madison, NJ 07940