alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### David ADKINS, Plaintiff, and Bernardo Alvarez; Raul Alvarez; Daniel Atencio; Robert Auxier; Ernesto Barraza; James Bentson; Daniel Black; Virginia Brandon; Leamon Bryant; Armando Bustamente, Jr.; Edward Cesena, Jr.; Arthur Cena; Callen Campbell; Lila Diaz; Dorene Doric; Jeff Dunne; Jose Espinoza; Andrew Finley; Michael Fornaseri; Daniel Gallegos; David Garcia; Darvey Guidry; Martin Gonzalez; Fernando Gonzalez; Richard Heitzwebel; Charles Hearn; Rosemary Jaime; Patrick King; Kenneth Lammon; Jackie Lopez; Cecilia Lozano; Barbara Lute; Francisco Marin; Raul Mata; Katharine Miranda; Peter Miller; Linda Morales; William Mueller, Jr.; Matthew Montgomery, Jr.; Earl Pedford; Victor Paz; Jose Perez; Sefo Purcell; Martin Ramos; Leo Ruiz; Michael Rodriguez; Marie Riley; Blaine Roskelley; Ritch Smith; Samuel Saldana; Richard Sarmast; Thomas Servia; Martin Sepulveda; Kathy Seward; Richard Sherman; Rita Slagle; Julie Toone; Hiram Travis; John Vandyken; Jose Vargas; Ted Wightman; Darryl Williams; Gerald Wildermuth; Albert Zamora, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LUCKY STORES, INC., a California corporation and division of American Stores Company; American Stores Company, a corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 00-55045, 00-55388.

D.C. No. CV-99-09406-GAF.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 4, 2001.*

Decided June 13, 2001.

Before D.W. NELSON, FERNANDEZ, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiffs-appellants, former employees of Lucky/American Stores’ Fullerton warehouse, appeal from (1) the denial of their motion to file a second amended complaint; (2) summary judgment in favor of the defendants; and (3) the award of attorney’s fees to the defendants. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its orders of October 27, 1999, November 9, 1999, and January 24, 2000, respectively.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts in this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT A

NEWMAN & NEWMAN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

HOURLY RATE SHEET

Derek Newman $325

John Whitaker $310

Roy Berg $300

Roger Townsend $275

Jessica Newman $250

S. Christopher Winter $250

Randy Moeller $235

John Du Wors $215

Michael Spain $210

Derek Linke $175

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 131-2 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 1 of 1

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 131 Att. 1

Dockets.Justia.com
Dry Sorbent Injection (using Sodium Bicarbonate)

Cost Item Units Kiln 1

Capital Costs

Purchased Equipment Cost (PEC)

Equipment Cost (EC) $ 1,022,500

Instrumentation $ 10% 102,250

Sales Tax $ 3% 30,675

Freight $ 5% 51,125

Total PEC $ 1,206,550

Direct Installation Cost (DC)

Foundation and Supports $ 12% 144,786

Handling and Erection $ 40% 482,620

Electrical $ 1% --

Piping $ 30% 361,965

Insulation $ 1% 12,066

Painting $ 1% --

Total DC $ 1,001,437

Indirect Installation Cost (IC)

Engineering $ 10% --

Construction and field expenses $ 10% 120,655

Contractor Fees $ 10% 120,655

Performance Test $ 1% 12,066

Contingencies $ 3% 36,197

Total IC $ 289,572

Total Capital Investment (TCI), PEC+DC+IC 2,497,559

Annual Costs

Direct Annual Costs (DAC)

Reagent Usage Ratio 4.63

Reagent Usage lb/hr 33

Reagent Usage lb/yr 260,021

Reagent Usage ton/yr 130

Reagent Price $/ton 375

Reagent Cost $/yr 48,754

Waste Generated ton/yr 65

Waste Disposal Price $/ton 50

Waste Disposal Cost $/yr 3,242

Aux Power kW/hr 67

Aux Power kWh/yr 528,228

Aux Power Price $/kW 0.05

Aux Power Cost $/yr 26,411

Additional Labor $/yr 59,200
Total DAC 137,608

Indirect Annual Costs (IAC)

Overhead $/yr 60% 35,520

Admin, Taxes, Insurance $/yr 4% 99,902

Annualized Capital Cost $/yr 235,752

Total IAC 371,174

Total Annual Costs (DAC+IAC) 508,782

1 Interest Rate 7.0%

Equipment Lifetime (years) 20

Capital Recovery Factor 0.094 0.094

2 SO2 MW 64 lb/lbmol

SO4 MW 96 lb/lbmol

3 Anode Furnace SO2 emission estimates

Ctrl Tech Ctrl 

Efficiency lb/hr TPY

Baseline 0% 8.9 39

DSI 50% 4.5 19.5

SO2 Emissions
Notes

Vendor quote based upon 2,000 CFM flowrate. Not adjusted for Anode Furnace exhaust flowrate

10% of EC, Per EPA Control Cost Manual (CCM), Section 5.2, Chapter 1, Table 1.3

3% of EC, CCM, Section 5.2, Chapter 1, Table 1.3

5% of EC, CCM, Section 5.2, Chapter 1, Table 1.3

CCM, Section 5.2, Chapter 1, Table 1.3

CCM, Section 5.2, Chapter 1, Table 1.3

Included in EC

CCM, Section 5.2, Chapter 1, Table 1.3

CCM, Section 5.2, Chapter 1, Table 1.3

Included in EC

Included in EC

CCM, Section 5.2, Chapter 1, Table 1.3

CCM, Section 5.2, Chapter 1, Table 1.3

CCM, Section 5.2, Chapter 1, Table 1.3

CCM, Section 5.2, Chapter 1, Table 1.3

SBC, based on NSR=0.8

Includes $225/ton SBC cost and $150/ton transportation cost, "Non EGU_BART_Ch3.xlsx"

Waste consists of SO2 captured as SO4, plus sodium portion of SBC

Per contractor calculations for Nelson Plant in "Non EGU_BART_Ch3.xlsx"

67 MW additional pump required to overcome additional pressure head, per Noltech vendor quote

Based on 90% annual capacity factor

Per contractor calculations for Nelson Plant in "Non EGU_BART_Ch3.xlsx"

See Andover Technology Partners memo, page 17, "C_08_005_Cement Kiln Cost Analysis 2009-03-10.pdf." 
60% of labor and material costs, per CCM, Section 5.2, Chapter 1, Table 1.4 (used 'additional labor' category in this instance)

4% OF TCI, per CCM, Section 5.2, Chapter 1, Table 1.4

' category in this instance)
#### In the Matter of Sheldon J. Kravitz, a Disbarred Attorney.

[632 NYS2d 960]

—Motion for reinstatement denied. No opinion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ross and Williams, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jovan ALEXANDER and Shannon Hughes, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 03-3051, 03-3064.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

July 21, 2005.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc

Denied Aug. 24, 2005.

*488Before BAUER, ROVNER, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

After the Supreme Court instructed that the sentencing guidelines are to be applied only in advisory fashion, *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), we ordered a limited remand to determine whether the district court would have sentenced these appellants differently had it known that it was not bound by the guidelines. *See United States v. Paladino,*401 F.3d 471, 481 (7th Cir.2005). The district judge has replied that in both cases he would have imposed identical sentences even under advisory guidelines. We invited the parties to file arguments concerning the reasonableness of the sentences. Having reviewed these responses, we now affirm both sentences.

We recently held that a sentence within the applicable guideline range is presumptively reasonable. *United States v. Mykytiuk,*415 F.3d 606, 607-08 (7th Cir.2005). An appellant can rebut the presumption by demonstrating that his sentence is unreasonable when measured against the factors set forth in § 3553(a). *Id.*at 608. Here, each appellant received a sentence within the guideline range. Alexander received a sentence of 300 months — the middle of the range of 262 to 327 months. And Hughes’s 327-month sentence is in the middle of the calculated range of 292 to 365 months, or, as the parties characterize it, at the top end of the range that would result from a one-level “departure” for substantial assistance.

Each appellant argues that his sentence was unreasonable and asks us to remand for resentencing, and the government in both cases urges us to affirm. We conclude that neither appellant has presented an argument sufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. The district court gave due weight to the § 3553(a) factors and found that in each case, the sentence imposed was appropriate to hold the defendant accountable for the severity of his crime and to protect the community from a substantial risk of recidivism. Accordingly, as to both appellants, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 16030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05482]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Intelligent Transportation Systems Program Advisory Committee; 
Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: ITS Joint Program Office, Research and Innovative Technology 
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Program Advisory 
Committee (ITS PAC) will hold a meeting on March 27, 2013, from 8:00 
a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (EST), and on March 28, 2013, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 
p.m. (EST) in the Admiral II and III rooms of the Courtyard Marriott 
Capitol Hill/Navy Yard Hotel, 140 L Street SE., Washington, DC 20003.
    The ITS PAC, established under Section 5305 of Public Law 109-59, 
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
Legacy for Users, August 10, 2005, and re-established under Section 
53003 of Public Law 112-141, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 
Century, July 6, 2012, was created to advise the Secretary of 
Transportation on all matters relating to the study, development, and 
implementation of intelligent transportation systems. Through its 
sponsor, the ITS Joint Program Office (JPO), the ITS PAC makes 
recommendations to the Secretary regarding ITS Program needs, 
objectives, plans, approaches, content, and progress.
    The following is a summary of the meeting tentative agenda. March 
27: (1) ITS JPO Activities Update, (2) Safety Pilot Program Update, and 
(3) Shared Use Frequency Spectrum Issues Update. March 28: (1) NHTSA 
Rule-making Process Overview, (2) Subcommittee Break-out Meetings, and 
(3) Subcommittee Reports.
    The meeting will be open to the public, but limited space will be 
available on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public 
who wish to present oral statements at the meeting must request 
approval from Mr. Stephen Glasscock, the Committee Designated Federal 
Official, at (202) 366-9126, not later than March 20, 2013.
    Questions about the agenda or written comments may be submitted by 
U.S. Mail to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and 
Innovative Technology Administration, ITS Joint Program Office, 
Attention: Stephen Glasscock, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, HOIT, 
Washington, DC 20590 or faxed to (202) 493-2027. The ITS Joint Program 
Office requests that written comments be submitted not later than March 
20, 2013.
    Notice of this meeting is provided in accordance with the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act and the General Services Administration 
regulations (41 CFR part 102-3) covering management of Federal advisory 
committees.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on the 4th day of March 2013.
Kenneth M. Leonard,
Director, ITS Joint Program Office.
[FR Doc. 2013-05482 Filed 3-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-HY-P
```
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  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax
Credit Fund III, L.P.  (the  "Partnership")  for the period ended  September 30,
2009 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  I,  Wilfred N.  Cooper,  Jr.,
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner
of the Partnership, hereby certify 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  result  of  operations  of  the
     Partnership.




/s/WILFRED N. COOPER, JR.
-------------------------
Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.

November 9, 2009
-88 -86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 32

 34

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

07/11

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 11 Jul 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.92 N 77.01 W Meters AGL
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-3 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 1 of 13

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 13 Att. 2

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-3 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-3 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-3 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-3 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-3 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-3 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-3 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-3 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-3 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-3 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-3 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-3 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 13 of 13
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-1052 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2012-CE-014-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
H. Res. 807 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

March 4, 2008. 

Whereas Marjory Stoneman Douglas was born on April 7, 

1890, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the daughter of Frank 

Stoneman, the first publisher of the Miami Herald; 

Whereas Marjory Stoneman Douglas graduated from Wellesley College in 1912 where she was a member of the literary group Scribblers, editor-in-chief of the yearbook, 

and served on the executive board of the Equal Suffrage 

League; 

Whereas Marjory Stoneman Douglas served in the Red Cross 

in Europe during World War I; 

Whereas Marjory Stoneman Douglas moved to Miami in 

1915 and became a reporter and writer at The Miami 

Herald where she wrote about progressive issues such as 

the fight for women’s rights, racial justice, and environmental conservation; 

Whereas Marjory Stoneman Douglas wrote dozens of short 

stories that were published in the Saturday Evening 

Post, Collier’s, and Woman’s Home Companion throughout the 1920s, 30s, and 40s; 

Whereas in 1947 Marjory Stoneman Douglas wrote a groundbreaking book titled The Everglades: River of Grass that 

helped to draw national attention to a vast and little- 
2 

•HRES 807 EH 

known area that South Florida developers had deemed a 

worthless swamp; 

Whereas in the same year, Marjory Stoneman Douglas’ book 

mustered the public support to guard this subtropical 

marshland through a declaration from President Harry 

Truman, officially protecting the Everglades as a National Park; 

Whereas at the age of 78, Marjory Stoneman Douglas founded the Friends of the Everglades, an educational and advocacy group dedicated to the protection and restoration 

of this ecosystem that continues to be at forefront of 

Florida conservation; 

Whereas in November 1993, President Bill Clinton awarded 

Marjory Stoneman Douglas the Presidential Medal of 

Freedom, the highest honor given to a civilian; 

Whereas 2007 marked the 60th anniversary of the publication of her book, The Everglades: River of Grass; and 

Whereas Marjory Stoneman Douglas passed away in 1998 

living to the age of 108, her ashes scattered in the Everglades she worked so tirelessly to preserve: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors the 

life, achievements, and distinguished career of Marjory 

Stoneman Douglas, pioneer in the field of conservation, on 
3 

•HRES 807 EH 

the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the publication of The 

Everglades: River of Grass. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Before the First Division,

April 28, 1969

No. P69/121.

protests 67/15902, etc. (New York).

No. P69/122.

protests 67/20260, etc. (New York).

No. P 69/123.

protests 67/30476, etc. (New York).

No. P69/124.

protests 67/34393, etc. (Boston).

No. P69/125.

protests 67/36345, etc. (New York).

Po. P69/126.

protests 67/55000, etc. (Los Angeles).

No. P69/127.

protests 67/83206 and 67/6396 (Philadelphia).

No. P69/128.

protests 67/86015-6153, etc. (Chicago).

No. P69/129.

protests 68/33639-7892, etc. (Chicago).

#### Delta Novelty Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States, Corham Artificial Flower Co. *v.*United States, Deldan Design, Inc. *v.*United States, Marcus Display Industries, Inc. *v.*United States, Regency Flowers, Inc., et al. *v.*United States, Colorado Trading Co. *v.*United States, City Products Corp. *v.*United States, Karl Schroff & Assoc., Inc. *v.*United States, Reliance Trading Corp. of Illinois et al. *v.*United States,

WatsoN, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of artificial flowers, trees, foliage, fruits, vegetables, grasses, or grains, and articles made of the foregoing, in chief value of plastic, assembled in the same manner as the merchandise the subject of *Armbee (Corporation et al.*v. *United States*(60 Cust. Ct. 105, C.D. 3278) and *Zunold Trading Corporation et al.*v. *United States*(60 Cust. Ct. 112, C.D. 3279), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 68 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 68

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Thursday, 
November 13, 1997, or Friday, November 14, 1997, on a motion offered 
pursuant to this concurrent resolution by the Majority Leader or his 
designee, it stand adjourned sine die, or until noon on the second day 
after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this 
concurrent resolution, and that when the Senate adjourns on Thursday, 
November 13, 1997, or Friday, November 14, 1997, on a motion offered 
pursuant to this concurrent resolution by the Majority Leader or his 
designee, it stand adjourned sine die, or until noon on the second day 
after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this 
concurrent resolution.
    Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, 
in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
    Sec. 3. The Congress declares that clause 5 of rule III of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives and the order of the Senate of 
January 7, 1997, authorize for the duration of the One Hundred Fifth 
Congress the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of 
the Senate, respectively: To receive messages from the President during 
periods when the House and Senate are not in session and thereby 
preserve until adjournment sine die of the final regular session of the 
One Hundred Fifth Congress the constitutional prerogative of the House 
and Senate to reconsider vetoed measures in light of the objections of 
the President, since the availability of the Clerk and the Secretary 
during any earlier adjournment of either House during the current 
Congress does not prevent the return by the President of any bill 
presented to him for approval.
    Sec. 4. The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall inform the 
President of the United States of the adoption of this concurrent 
resolution.

            Passed the Senate November 13, 1997.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
105th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            S. CON. RES. 68

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    To adjourn sine die the First Session of the One Hundred Fifth 
                               Congress.
```
No. 68470.

protest 62/17568 (New York).

#### Mitsubishi International Corp. *v.*United States,

*325Opinion by

Oliver, C.X

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of certain “photo lenses” similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Unimark Photo, Inc.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ot. 75, O.D. 2283), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
AMENDMENT TO NEW PROMISSORY NOTE





EXHIBIT 10.44

AMENDMENT TO NEW PROMISSORY NOTE




WHEREAS Bright Mountain Media, Inc (“Borrower”) agreed pursuant to a New Promissory Note to pay to the order of Alex Khowaylo (“Lender”) $500,000 on December 31, 2017 together with accrued but unpaid interest from September 30, 2017, and




WHEREAS Borrower has requested and Lender has agreed to extend the Maturity Date to April 30, 2018.




NOW THEREFORE the parties have agreed as follows:




1.

The Maturity Date shall be extended until April 30, 2018




2.

In all other respects the terms and conditions of the New Promissory Note are ratified and confirmed.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Borrower has signed this Amendment to the Promissory Note this 20th day of March, 2018 to be effective as of December 31, 2017.







		
	 
	BRIGHT MOUNTAIN MEDIA


	 
	 

	 
	 

	 
	/s/ W. Kip Speyer


	 
	W. KIP SPEYER, Chief Executive Officer