alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


                                                               Exhibit 10.69.1


                FIRST AMENDMENT TO SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT



         This First Amendment to the Securities Purchase Agreement dated as of
October 7, 2002 by and among Implant Sciences Corporation, a Massachusetts
corporation (the "Company"), and Laurus Master Fund, Ltd., a Cayman Islands
company (the "Purchaser") (the "Agreement") is made as of the 27th day of
August, 2003 . Defined terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings
ascribed them in the Agreement. For good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree
as follows:

         1.       The Agreement is hereby amended by deleting Section 6.15
                  thereof in its entirety.

         2.       Except as specifically amended herein, all terms and
                  conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and
                  effect as originally constituted.

         3.       No Event of Default under the Agreement has occurred and each
                  of the representations of the Company contained in the
                  Agreement remain accurate and correct as of the date hereof,
                  and are hereby restated and reaffirmed.

         4.       This First Amendment shall take effect as a sealed instrument
                  under the laws of the State of New York as of the date first
                  written above.

                                   IMPLANT SCIENCES CORPORATION


                                   /s/ ANTHONY J. ARMINI
                                   --------------------------------------------
                                   Anthony J. Armini, President and CEO

                                   LAURUS MASTER FUND, LTD.


                                   /s/ DAVID GRIN
                                   --------------------------------------------
                                   David Grin, Partner
-iIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL ACTION

v. :

GLENN HOLCK : NO. 04-370-03

STEPHEN M. UMBRELL NO. 04-370-04

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Denial of Motion for Judgment of Acquittal ................................... 1

A. Conspiracy/Honest Services Fraud .................................... 1

B. Factual Summary .................................................. 3

C. Legal Discussion ................................................. 11

1. Banks Loans as a Component of Bribery ......................... 11

2. Temporal Attenuation between the Quid and the Quo .............. 16

3. Other Arguments by Holck and Umbrell Re: Conspiracy Law ........ 22

4. “Conflict of Interest” Prong ................................... 23

D. Mail Fraud ...................................................... 25

II. Denial of Motion for New Trial ............................................ 26

A. The Fact that Holck and Umbrell Were Convicted of Conspiracy Is an

Additional Reason Why They Are Not Entitled to a New Trial Under Dobson . 26

B. Additional Jury Charge Issues ....................................... 29

C. Whether a New Trial Should Be granted or a Hearing Held as to Juror No.

6's Alleged Failure to Disclose Part-Time Position as a Real Estate Agent .... 32

1. Alleged Juror No. 6's Misconduct and Bias in “Concealing” Her

Part-Time Occupation as a Real Estate Agent during Voir Dire ....... 33

Case 2:04-cr-00370-MMB Document 835 Filed 10/26/05 Page 1 of 2
-iia. McDonough Prong One: Intentional Withholding

Of Material Information ................................ 33

b. McDonough Prong Two: Valid Basis for Challenge for Cause . . 37

2. Introduction of Extrinsic Evidence into Deliberations .............. 39

3. Hearing Is Not Necessary under the Facts ........................ 46

D. The Court Allowed Adequate Voir Dire, including the Opportunity

of Individual Defense Counsel to Question the Potential Jurors ............. 48

E. The Court Did Not Err in its Ruling on the Admissibility of Evidence ....... 52

1. Admissibility of the Flores and Church Loans .................... 53

2. Admissibility of the Schnapp Loan ............................. 54

a. Schnapp Loan as Intrinsic to the Charged Offense ........... 55

b. Schnapp Loan Admissible under Rule 404(b) .............. 57

3. Admissibility of Co-Conspirator Statements ..................... 61

F. There Were No Violations of Brady v. Maryland or Other Prosecutorial

Misconduct ..................................................... 62

G. Ex Parte Communications with Deputy Clerk Issue ..................... 62

III. Conclusion ........................................................... 67

O:\Criminal Cases\04-0370 White, US v\Table of Contents Holck & Umbrell Post Trial Memorandum.wpd

Case 2:04-cr-00370-MMB Document 835 Filed 10/26/05 Page 2 of 2
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-3113

ARMANDA E. COLES,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Respondent.

Petitioner for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in AT0752050486-X-2.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Upon consideration of the parties' motion for reconsideration of the court's order

dismissing this petition for failure to prosecute, and the parties' motion to voluntarily

dismiss the petition,

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion for reconsideration is granted. The mandate is recalled and

the October 16, 2008 dismissal order is vacated.

The motion to voluntarily dismiss the petition is granted.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbalv

Jan Horbaly

Clerk	 FILED

RC

U.S. COURT OF APPEALs

THE FEDERAL CIulTr°

MAR 2 4 2009

Mit HOhodul

CLERK

MAR 2 4 2009

Date

cc:	Ronald S. Webster, Esq.

Allison Kidd-Miller, Esq.

s20 MAR 2 4 2009

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: 	

2008-3113	 2
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 of Northeast Pennsylvania Financial Corp.  (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with  the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), we, Thomas M. Petro,  President and Chief Executive Officer, and Jerry D. Holbrook, Chief Financial  Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of  the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





|1. | The Report    fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                                                 
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                             
|2. | The    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,    the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and    for the period covered by the Report.




|/s/ THOMAS M. PETRO                      |  | /s/ JERRY D. HOLBROOK     
|---------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------
|                                         |  |                           
|Thomas M.    Petro                       |  | Jerry D.    Holbrook      
|President    and Chief Executive Officer |  | Chief    Financial Officer
|Date:  August 13, 2004                   |  | Date:  August 13, 2004
Exhibit 32.2

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 of Virage Logic Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the
period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Christine Russell, Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officers knowledge:

(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 Company as of and for the dates presented.



|                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                    
|/s/ Christine Russell                                               
|Christine Russell                                                   
|Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
|June 12, 2008
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1065 

To designate Union Station in Washington, DC, as ‘‘Harry S. Truman 

Union Station’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 8, 2017 

Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself and Mr. BLUNT) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To designate Union Station in Washington, DC, as ‘‘Harry 

S. Truman Union Station’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. HARRY S. TRUMAN UNION STATION. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—Union Station, located at 40 

5 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Washington, DC, shall be 

6 known and designated as ‘‘Harry S. Truman Union Sta7 tion’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1065 IS

1 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Harry S. Truman 

2 Union Station’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Before the Third Division,

April 23, 1959

No. 62987.

#### L. Batlin & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/6027 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of toy furniture sets similar in all material respects to those the subject of *J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(34 Cust. Ct. 145, C.D. 1695), the merchandise was held dutiable under paragraph 1513 at the rate in effect at the time of withdrawal for consumption.
Presidential Documents

77489 

Federal Register 

Vol. 88, No. 216 

Thursday, November 9, 2023 

Title 3— 

The President 

Notice of November 7, 2023 

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Iran 

On November 14, 1979, by Executive Order 12170, the President declared 

a national emergency with respect to Iran pursuant to the International 

Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and took related 

steps to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national 

security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by 

the situation in Iran. 

Our relations with Iran have not yet normalized, and the process of implementing the agreements with Iran, dated January 19, 1981, is ongoing. For 

this reason, the national emergency declared on November 14, 1979, and 

the measures adopted on that date to deal with that emergency, must continue 

in effect beyond November 14, 2023. Therefore, in accordance with section 

202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing 

for 1 year the national emergency with respect to Iran declared in Executive 

Order 12170. 

The emergency declared by Executive Order 12170 is distinct from the 

emergency declared in Executive Order 12957 on March 15, 1995. This 

renewal, therefore, is distinct from the emergency renewal of March 10, 

2023. 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to 

the Congress. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

November 7, 2023. 

[FR Doc. 2023–25006 

Filed 11–8–23; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 3395–F4–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PRESDOC-O0BIDEN.EPS</GPH>
Exhibit 32.1 Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley act of 2001. In connection with the Annual Report of Hartville Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSBfor the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), each of Dennis Rushovich, Chief Executive Officer and President of theCompany, and Christopher R. Sachs, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; andThe information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.    Dated: March 30, 2006       /s/ Dennis Rushovich     Dennis Rushovich, CEO     /s/ Christopher R. Sachs     Christopher R. Sachs,  Chief Financial Officer and  Principal Accounting Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 20, 2019

No. 04-19-00381-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.O., A CHILD,

Appellant

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-PA-01006

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The clerk’s record was due June 14, 2019, but has not been filed. On June 18, 2019, the 

trial court clerk notified this court that the clerk’s record was not filed when it was originally due 

because appellant had failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the 

record and that appellant was not entitled to appeal without paying the fee. It is therefore 

ORDERED that appellant provide written proof to this court within ten (10) days of the date of 

this order that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the 

clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee. If appellant fails 

to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b).

The reporter’s record was due on June 14, 2019, but has not been filed. On June 18, 

2019, the court reporter filed a notification of late record, notifying this court that the reporter’s 

record was not filed when it was originally due because appellant failed to pay or make 

arrangements to pay the reporter’s fee for preparing the record and that appellant was not entitled 

to appeal without paying the fee. It is therefore ORDERED that appellant provide written proof 

to this court within ten (10) days of the date of this order that either (1) the reporter’s fee has 

been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the reporter’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to 

appeal without paying the reporter’s fee. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, 

this court will order appellant’s brief due within thirty (30) days from the date the clerk’s record 

is filed, and the court will consider only those issues or points raised in appellant’s brief that do 

not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c).
_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 20th day of June, 2019.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle,

Clerk of Court
A prisoner seeking a certificate of appealability must 1

demonstrate “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason

could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his

constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues

presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed

further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). No

basis for a certificate of appealability exists in this case, as

Petitioner is unable to meet this standard.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOSE JIMENEZ, : CIVIL ACTION

Petitioner, : NO. 08-0427

:

v. :

:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : CRIMINAL ACTION

: NO. 04-63

Respondent. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 8th day of May 2009, upon consideration

of the petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. no. 63), it is

hereby ORDERED that the petition is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that there is no probable cause to

issue a Certificate of Appealability.

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case shall be marked

CLOSED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

 S/Eduardo C. Robreno 

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

Case 2:04-cr-00063-ER Document 73 Filed 05/11/09 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:04-cr-00063-ER Document 73 Filed 05/11/09 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

 

RICHARD T. FARREN ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 vs. ) 

 ) Civil Action No. 04-995 

EXPERIAN INFORMATION ) 

SOLUTIONS, INC. ) 

 and ) 

TRANS UNION, LLC ) 

 and ) 

ANDERSON FINANCIAL NETWORK, INC. ) 

 and ) 

GMAC ) 

 and ) 

RJM ACQUISITIONS FUNDING, LLC ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

 )

 

PLAINTIFF RICHARD T. FARREN’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 

DEFENDANT RJM ACQUISITIONS FUNDING, LLC’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 

Plaintiff, Richard T. Farren, through counsel, hereby opposes the Motion for 

Summary Judgment of RJM Acquisitions Funding, LLC. For the reasons set forth in the 

accompanying Memorandum of Law, which is incorporated by reference herein, the 

Motion should be denied in its entirety. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C. 

 BY: ____________________________ 

 JAMES A. FRANCIS, ESQUIRE 

 MARK D. MAILMAN, ESQUIRE 

 JOHN SOUMILAS, ESQUIRE 

Land Title Building, 19th Floor 

100 South Broad Street 

 Philadelphia, PA 19110 

Case 2:04-cv-00995-GP Document 50 Filed 05/20/05 Page 1 of 2
 (215) 735-8600 

Dated: May 20, 2005 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 2:04-cv-00995-GP Document 50 Filed 05/20/05 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 900 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 900

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          May 17, 2018.
    Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration 
of the bill (H.R. 2) to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural 
and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2023, 
and for other purposes. No further amendment to the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of 
the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such further amendment 
may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a 
Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable 
for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such further amendments are 
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment pursuant to 
this resolution the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
No. 57934.

protests 185583-K, etc. (New York).

#### Alfa Photo Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of resistors similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 57045, the claim of th,e plaintiffs was sustained.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
                          302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT



I, Ronald Shogren, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this  annual  report on Form  10-KSB of Shogi, Inc.;

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 officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

<PAGE>

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: January 15, 2004


/s/Ronald Shogren
-----------------------
Ronald Shogren, President