alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.8

 

FOURTH AMENDMENT TO

PROMISSORY NOTE

 

This Fourth Amendment to Promissory Note (this “Amendment”) is entered into on March 10, 2015 and is effective as of December 31, 2014, by and between Wisdom Homes of America, Inc., f/k/a SearchCore, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) and James Pakulis, an individual (the “Holder”).

 

RECITALS

 

WHEREAS, Company and Holder are parties to that certain Promissory Note dated December 31, 2012, in the original principal amount of One Hundred Sixty One Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($161,250) (the “Original Note”); and

 

WHEREAS, Company and Holder desire to amend and restate Section 2 of the Original Note and amend the Maturity Date, effective as of December 31, 2014, as set forth herein.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and adequate consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and Holder agree as follows:

 

AGREEMENT

 

1. Section 2 of the Original Note is restated in its entirety as follows:

 

“2. PAYMENT OF THE NOTE. The Principal Amount of this Note shall be paid by the Company as follows:

 

(a) The Company shall pay the Holder Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($37,500) on January 1, 2017; and

 

(b) The Company shall make twenty three (23) equal monthly installments of principal and interest of Five Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty One Dollars and Eight Cents ($5,721.08) beginning February 15, 2017, and continuing on the 15th of each month thereafter.

 

If any payment of principal or interest under this Note shall not be made within ten (10) business days when due, a late charge of ten percent (10%) of the outstanding payment amount may be charged by Holder for the purpose of defraying the expenses incident to handling such delinquent payments. Such late charge represents a reasonable sum considering all of the circumstances existing on the date of this Note and represents a fair and reasonable estimate of the costs that will be sustained by Holder due to the failure of Company to make timely payments.”

 

2. The “Maturity Date” of the Original Note shall, pursuant to this Amendment, be December 15, 2018.

 

3. Other than as set forth herein, the terms and conditions of the Original Note shall remain in full force and effect.

 

 

[remainder of page intentionally left blank; signature page to follow] 

	 
	
1








	





 

In witness whereof, Company and Holder have executed this Agreement on the date first written above.

 

	


“Holder”

	
 

	


“Company”

	
 


		 			 	
		 	
 

	


Wisdom Homes of America, Inc.

	
 


		 	
 

	


a Nevada corporation

	
 


		 			 	
	
 

	
/s/ James Pakulis

	
 

	
 

	
/s/ James Pakulis

	
 


	
By:

	
James Pakulis, an individual

	
 

	
By:

	
James Pakulis

	
 


		 	
 

	
Its:

	
President and Chief Executive Officer

	
 


		 			 	
		 	
 

	
 

	
/s/ Munjit Johal

	
 


		 	
 

	
By:

	
Munjit Johal

	
 


		 	
 

	
Its:

	
Chief Financial Officer

	
 




 

 

2
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 463 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 463

  To amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to include certain 
                  communities, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 16, 2023

   Ms. Sinema (for herself, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Rosen) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to include certain 
                  communities, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Downwinders Parity Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. INCLUSION UNDER THE RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION ACT.

    Section 4(b)(1) of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 
U.S.C. 2210 note; Public Law 101-426) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (B)--
                    (A) by striking ``that portion of''; and
                    (B) by striking ``that consists of townships 13 
                through 16 at ranges 63 through 71''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``all acreage in any 
        county all or part of which is located in'' before ``that 
        part''.

SEC. 3. REPORT.

    Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Attorney General shall submit to the relevant committees of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives a report that outlines efforts 
to educate and conduct outreach to persons made newly eligible for 
benefits under the amendments made by section 2.
                                 <all>
```
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BILLY JOE JONES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2048 DFL KJM P

vs.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, and counsel for defendants Nancy

Gallagher and Deputy N. Green have stipulated that this action be dismissed as to Ms. Gallagher. 

The July 5, 2005 stipulation shall be honored.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Ms. Gallagher is dismissed as a

party to this action, without prejudice. 

DATED: July 11, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/kf

jone2048.59

Case 2:04-cv-02048-RRB -KJM Document 23 Filed 07/12/05 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Edith Craigie, Appellant, v County of Westchester, Respondent.

[634 NYS2d 381]

—In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of *440the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered August 16, 1994, which denied the application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances, including the absence of a reasonable excuse for the petitioner’s delay in filing a notice of claim and the resulting prejudice to the respondent, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the petitioner’s application *(see, Matter of Buddenhagen v Town of Brookhaven,*212 AD2d 605; *Matter of Sosa v City of New York,*206 AD2d 374; *Bailey v City of New York,*159 AD2d 280). Balletta, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
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
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ John A. Bardis

John A. BardisChairman, President and Chief Executive OfficerMay 7, 2010
 /s/ L. Neil Hunn

L. Neil HunnExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerMay 7, 2010
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN ZAREFAKIS, No. MISC.S-04-0295 DFL DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

RICK MATUSKA,

Defendant.

__________________________/

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by

filing a document entitled “Commercial Notice within the Admiralty of

the Filing of Foreign Judgment.” Plaintiff’s “commercial notice”

appears to be an attempt to record a debt against certain San Joaquin

County code enforcement officers and members of that county’s Board

of Supervisors. The filing also makes reference to the Internal

Revenue Service and the San Joaquin County Development Department. 

However, the “commercial notice” indicates no basis for federal

jurisdiction and published authority indicates that there is no legal

basis for filing such notices. See United States v. MacElvain, 858

Case 2:04-mc-00295-DFL-DAD Document 3 Filed 05/23/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

F. Supp. 1096, 1100 (M.D. Ala. 1994)(collecting cases).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall show

cause in writing within twenty (20) days of the date this order is

filed why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)(“Whenever it

appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court

lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the

action.”). Failure to timely file the required writing will result

in a recommendation of dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 20, 2005.

DAD:th

DDad1\orders.prose\zarefakis.osc

Case 2:04-mc-00295-DFL-DAD Document 3 Filed 05/23/05 Page 2 of 2
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4695 

To repeal the District of Columbia Home Rule Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 11 (legislative day, JULY 10), 2024 

Mr. LEE (for himself, Ms. LUMMIS, and Mrs. BLACKBURN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To repeal the District of Columbia Home Rule Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Bringing Oversight 

5 to Washington and Safety to Every Resident Act’’ or the 

6 ‘‘BOWSER Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4695 IS

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOME RULE 

2 ACT. 

3 Effective on the date that is 1 year after the date 

4 of enactment of this Act, the District of Columbia Home 

5 Rule Act (Public Law 93–198; 87 Stat. 774) is repealed. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8205 

AN ACT 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit fraud 

in connection with posting bail. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 8205 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Keeping Violent Of3 fenders Off Our Streets Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. FRAUD IN CONNECTION WITH POSTING BAIL. 

5 Section 1033(f)(1)(A) of title 18, United States Code, 

6 is amended by inserting before the comma the following: 

7 ‘‘(including the posting of monetary bail, criminal bail 

8 bonds, and Federal immigration bail bonds)’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 25, 

2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8205 

AN ACT 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit 

fraud in connection with posting bail.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICE

Darrel K. Yasutake (SB #142927)

HUBERT & YASUTAKE

A Professional Corporation

1390 Willow Pass Road, Suite 360

Concord, California 94520

Telephone: (925)680-4266

Facsimile: (925)680-4259

Attorneys for Plaintiff

STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE Case No. CIV.S-04-2498 FCD DAD

COMPANY,

Plaintiff, STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF 

ACTION WITH PREJUDICE

vs.

SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC.,

Defendant. 

 /

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to this

action through their designated counsel that the above-captioned

action, including all claims and counterclaims, be and hereby is

dismissed with prejudice pursuant to FED. R. CIV. PROC. 41(a)(1)

and agreement of the parties. 

Respectfully Submitted,

Dated: May 2 , 2006 HUBERT & YASUTAKE

 /s/ 

DARREL K. YASUTAKE (Bar No. 142927)

HUBERT & YASUTAKE

A Professional Corporation

Case 2:04-cv-02498-FCD-DAD Document 33 Filed 05/03/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICE

1390 Willow Pass Road, Suite 360

Concord, California 94520

Telephone: (925) 680-4266

Facsimile: (925) 680-4259

Attorneys for Plaintiff

STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.

Dated: May 2 , 2006 BOLLING, WALTER & GAWTHROP

 /s/ 

JOHN P. COLEMAN(Bar No. 60844)

BOLLING, WALTER & GAWTHROP

A Professional Corporation

8880 Cal Center Drive, Suite 400

Sacramento, California 95826

Telephone: (916) 369-0777

Facsimile: (916) 369-2698

Attorneys for Defendant

SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2006 

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02498-FCD-DAD Document 33 Filed 05/03/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 99.2



                               CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and in connection with the filing by Universal
Communication Systems, Inc. (the "Company") with the Securities and Exchange
Commission of its Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the Fiscal Year Ended
September 30, 2002 (the "Report"), the undersigned does 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 results of
          operation of the Company.


                                       /s/ CURTIS ORGIL
                                       ---------------------
Date:  February 13, 2002          By:  Curtis Orgil
                                       Director and Chief
                                       Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sharon POLLARD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 83-5264.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued Dec. 7, 1983.

Decided Jan. 17, 1984.

Rehearing Denied April 13, 1984.

Charles Dupree (argued), Chattanooga, Tenn., for defendant-appellant.

John W. Gill, Jr., U.S. Atty., John C. Littleton (argued), Asst. U.S. Atty., Chattanooga, Tenn., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before LIVELY, Chief Judge, JONES, Circuit Judge and CELEBREZZE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted for illegally acquiring food stamps in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 2024(b) and appeals, arguing that the district court committed reversible error in its instructions to the jury. The district court charged the jury that the word “knowingly” as used in the instructions “means that the act was done voluntarily and intentionally and not because of mistake or by accident.” The district court also instructed the jury that ignorance of the law is no excuse. The defendant requested a charge that she could be convicted only upon a finding that she knew that her acquisition of the food stamps was illegal.

On appeal the government contends that it is immaterial whether she knew that her acquisition was illegal because such knowledge is not an element of the crime. The government argues that the “knowingly” requirement of the statute refers to the defendant’s purpose, not to her intent.

7 U.S.C. § 2024(b) (1976) provides in pertinent part:

> (b)(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (2) of this subsection, whoever knowingly uses, transfers, acquires, alters, or possesses coupons or authorization cards in any manner not authorized by this chapter or the regulations issued pursuant to this chapter shall, if such coupons or authorization cards are of a value of $100 or more, be guilty of a felony.

In *United States v. Marvin,*687 F.2d 1221 (8th Cir.1982), cert. denied, -U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 1768, 76 L.Ed.2d 342 (1983), the court discussed the very issue presented by this case, considering the statutory language, the purpose of the statute and its legislative history. The court concluded that the district court should have charged the jury that the government had to prove “that the defendant knowingly did an act which the law forbids.” *Id.*at 1227. The *Marvin*court did not find that the evidence *1439was insufficient to support a conviction, but that the error consisted of the district court’s failure to instruct the jury that the defendant must know he was acting in violation of some law or regulation. The present case is indistinguishable from Marvin. We do not find that the evidence is insufficient, but do conclude that the district court erred in failing to give the requested instruction. The Eighth Circuit followed its *Marvin*decision in *United States v. Faltico,*687 F.2d 273 (8th Cir.1982), ce*rt.*denied,-U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 1783, 76 L.Ed.2d 353 (1983), and the Tenth Circuit reached the same conclusion by somewhat different reasoning in *United States v. O’Brien,*686 F.2d 850 (10th Cir.1982).

The judgment of the district court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration 

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. 

# ACTION:

Notice of commercial space transportation advisory committee open meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC). The meeting will take place on Friday, May 18, 2007, starting at 8 a.m. at the Federal Aviation Administration Headquarters Building,  800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, in the Bessie Coleman Conference Center, located on the 2nd Floor. This will be the forty-fifth meeting of the COMSTAC. 

                        The proposed agenda for the meeting will feature the release of and briefings on the 2007 Commercial Space Transportation Forecasts, a special presentation, a report on activities in FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST), and COMSTAC Working Group reports. An agenda will be posted on the FAA Web site at                         *http://ast.faa.gov.*                         Meetings of the COMSTAC Working Groups (Technology and Innovation, Reusable Launch Vehicle, Risk Management, and Launch Operations and Support) will be held on Thursday, May 17, 2007. For specific information concerning the times and locations of the working group meetings, contact the Contact Person listed below.                     

Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should inform the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Brenda Parker (AST-100), Office of the Commercial Space Transportation, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 331, Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-3674; E-mail                         *brenda.parker@faa.gov.*

Issued in Washington, DC, March 13, 2007. 

Patricia Grace Smith, 

Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation.

 [FR Doc. E7-5184 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

         I, Trevor Drinkwater, Chief Executive Officer of Genius Products, Inc.
(the "Registrant"), do hereby certify pursuant to Rule 15d-14(b) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63
of Title 18 of the United States Code that:

         (1) the Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the
Registrant for the period ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report"), to which this
statement is filed as an exhibit, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.

Dated:  March 31, 2005                 By:  /s/ Trevor Drinkwater
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Trevor Drinkwater
                                            Chief Executive Officer