alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w1







	 	 	 	 	 



Exhibit 10.1




THIRD PAYMENT EXTENSION AGREEMENT




          THIS THIRD PAYMENT EXTENSION AGREEMENT made effective the 30th day of April, 2010 by and
between DIGITAL AUDIO CORPORATION (“Company”) and DRI CORPORATION (formerly Digital Recorders,
Inc.) (“Holder”).




          WHEREAS, on April 30, 2007 Company and Holder entered into a $344,184.50 Promissory Note that
called for four (4) annual principal payments of $86,046.12 due beginning April 30, 2008
(“Promissory Note”);




          WHEREAS, the third principal payment is due from the Company to the Holder on April 30, 2010;




          WHEREAS, the Company has requested an extension of ninety (90) days in which to pay said third
principal payment;




          WHEREAS, the Holder agrees to allow said ninety (90) day extension with interest to continue
as set forth in the Promissory Note; and




          WHEREAS, the parties desire to extend the third payment of principal due on April 30, 2010 as
set forth herein.




          NOW, THEREFORE, for the consideration of Ten Dollars and other mutual promises and premises
made herein, the parties agree as follows:





	 	1.	 	The third principal payment due under said Promissory Note shall be extended
until July 30, 2010.
	 
	 	2.	 	In all other respects, the terms and provisions of the Promissory Note are
ratified and confirmed.





          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this Third Payment Extension Agreement the day and
year first above written.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	DIGITAL AUDIO CORPORATION

 	 
	 	By  	/s/
Donald E. Tunstall
 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	DRI CORPORATION

 	 
	 	By  	/s/
David L. Turney
 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 



 









 








          The undersigned guarantor joins in this Third Payment Extension Agreement for acknowledgment
purposes effective as of the 30th day of April, 2010.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	DOLPHIN DIRECT EQUITY PARTNERS, LP





By: Dolphin Advisors, LLC

       Its managing general partner

By: Dolphin Management Inc.

       Its managing member


 	 
	 	By:  	/s/
Peter E. Salas
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Peter E. Salas 	 
	 	 	Title:  	President
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.19 MB)

Tags:National Preparedness Month, ready.gov

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
**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 Form 10-Q of Redpoint Bio Corporation (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, F. Raymond Salemme, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.

 

 
| Dated:   August 22, 2011 | /s/   F. Raymond Salemme                |
|-------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                          | F.   Raymond Salemme                    |
|                          | President   and Chief Executive Officer |
|                          | (Principal   Executive Officer)         |

 

----

* A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Redpoint Bio Corporation and will be retained by Redpoint Bio Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### Denis Healy, Plaintiff, *v.*Jonas Rennert et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

December 16, 1958.

*Matthew McCarthy*for plaintiff.

*Eckhaus, Eckhaus & Eschen*for defendants.

Jacob J. Schwabtzwald, J.

Motion by one of the plaintiffs to take the testimony of a coplaintiff as a witness by oral commission or written interrogatories.

*562The action is for personal injuries as a result of a collision between two automobiles. The actions were commenced separately but were consolidated by order of this court, upon motion of the plaintiff sought to be examined, who has since settled his action and now permanently resides in Arizona. While said plaintiff may not be compelled to attend in this State and will give no assurance of his coming to New York for the trial, he has consented to an examination on written interrogatories, if same are sent to him. Defendants oppose the application and submit the examination should be by oral deposition because of the nature of the testimony to be given and the almost impossible task of properly cross-examining the witness by written interrogatories.

Oral examinations are favored, and written interrogatories are not resorted to unless just as effective or otherwise required by the necessity of the situation presented *(Pinkowitz*v. *California Packing Corp.,*126 N. Y. S. 2d 783; *Bieber-Isaacs Co.*v. *Philadelphia Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,*125 Misc. 494).

The motion is granted, pursuant to section 302 of the Civil Practice Act, to take the testimony of the witness in Arizona upon written interrogatories to be settled as provided by the Buies of Civil Practice. If defendant prefers, the testimony may be taken in Arizona upon open commission, the necessary disbursements of the attorneys for both sides in attending upon the examination to be paid by their respective clients. The party ultimately successful may tax such payment as a disbursement (Fit*zgerald*v. *Fitzgerald,*262 App. Div. 708; *Pinkowitz*v. *California Packing Corp., supra).*

Settle order on notice indicating the method of examination in accordance with the foregoing.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 406 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 406

    Designating April 4, 2014, as ``National Association of Junior 
                           Auxiliaries Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 31, 2014

    Mr. Wicker (for himself and Mr. Pryor) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Designating April 4, 2014, as ``National Association of Junior 
                           Auxiliaries Day''.

Whereas the National Association of Junior Auxiliaries and the members of the 
        National Association of Junior Auxiliaries provide valuable service and 
        leadership opportunities for women who wish to take an active role in 
        their communities;
Whereas the mission of the National Association of Junior Auxiliaries is to 
        encourage member chapters to render charitable services that--

    (1) are beneficial to the general public; and

    (2) place a particular emphasis on providing for the needs of children; 
and

Whereas since the founding of the National Association of Junior Auxiliaries in 
        1941, the organization has provided strength and inspiration to women 
        who want to effect positive change in their communities: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates April 4, 2014, as ``National Association of 
        Junior Auxiliaries Day'';
            (2) recognizes the great contributions made by members of 
        the National Association of Junior Auxiliaries to their 
        communities and to the people of the United States; and
            (3) especially commends the work of the members of the 
        National Association of Junior Auxiliaries to better the lives 
        of children in the United States.
                                 <all>
```
Page 3 of 21
Page 4 of 21

Page 6 of 21
 

Page 7 of 21
Page 8 of 21
Page 9 of 21
Page 10 of 21
Page 11 of 21
Page 12 of 21
Page 13 of 21
Page 14 of 21






 

Page 21 of 21
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.57 MB)

Tags:quarterly awards, DLA Troop Support

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
Appendix 1 : UAVs used for Operations

Manufacturer Make/Model s : Representative Images: 3DR Hexa (X) 3DR Y6 DJI Phantom 3 Pro Cinestar 8 Tarot 680 Flitetest Electrohub
Order entered February 6, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00421-CR

No. 05-13-00423-CR

No. 05-13-00424-CR

No. 05-13-00425-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V.

ALBERT G. HILL III, Appellee

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F11-00180-Q, F11-00182-Q. F11-00183-Q, F11-00191-Q

ORDER

These cases are set for submission on Tuesday, February 18, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. Oral 

argument will take place in Liberty Hall, located on the first floor of the Rockwall County 

Courthouse at 1111 East Yellowjacket Lane in Rockwall, Texas.

The Court has received a request from KRLD NewsRadio 1080 for permission to record 

oral argument in these cases for the preparation of related news stories. The Court will not 

permit audio or visual recordings or photographs to be taken of the proceedings. Members of the 

Press/Media may only use pencil/pen and paper for taking notes. Accordingly, we DENY

KRLD News Radio’s request.
/s/ ADA BROWN 

PRESIDING JUSTICE
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

**Pursuant      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsections      (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States      Code)**

|                                  |                                                              |                                      |
|---------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                                  |                                                              |
|                             |                                                         |                                 |
| Dated: May              12, 2006 |                                                              | /s/ Jeffrey              S. Davidson |
|                                  | Jeffrey              S. Davidson                                  |
|                                  | Co-Chairman              and              Chief Executive Officer |

|         |                      |                               |
|--------------|---------------------------|------------------------------------|
|         |                      |
|    |                 |                          |
|         |                      | /s/ Udi              Toledano |
|         | Udi              Toledano |
|         | President                 |

----
#### Helen McGlyn et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*Anna Johnson et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Trial Term, Kings County,

March 9, 1959.

*Twohy & Kelleher*for plaintiffs.

*Galli, Terhune, Gibbons & Mulvehill (Oscar A. Thompson*of counsel), for Fred Seaman, defendant.

*Evans, Orr, Walsh, Gourlay & Pacelli (Walter G. Evans*of counsel), for Anna Johnson, defendant.

Benjamin Brenner, J.

The communication addressed to the court on March 5, 1959 by the attorney for the defendant Seaman is deemed a motion to reargue. The said defendant calls attention to an erroneous quote by the court of the wording of a motion made by him to set the verdict aside. He insists that the motion to set aside was not directed to *“*the weight of the evidence ” and that it was urged as incidental merely to the *1029motions made prior to the verdict for a dismissal of the complaint and for a directed verdict.

The court may have misconceived the nature of the motion. Whether there be any need to move to set aside a verdict when there are pending and undecided motions for a dismissal and for a directed verdict is a moot question since the granting of either of the latter motions disposes of the former. At any rate the motion to set aside was mistakenly thought to be addressed to the weight of the evidence rather than as ancillary to the earlier motions so that the misquote will be eliminated from the court’s opinion.

I must, however, adhere to my original decision for I am convinced that the complaint against this defendant cannot be dismissed nor may the verdict stand for the reasons set out in my said opinion. Indeed, I regard a new trial as essential despite the desire to avoid it for the purpose of expediting an appeal on the present record. Incidentally, there is no impediment to an immediate appeal from an order to be entered requiring a new trial (Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 557, 609; *Goldstein*v. *Goldstein,*212 App Div. 470; *Anderson*v. *Carter,*165 N. Y. 624, affg. 24 App. Div. 462; *Keremelis*v. *Albany Pearl Taxi,*274 App. Div. 360).

The opinion dated February 27, 1959 (15 Misc 2d 881, 882) is amended in the following respects: The words 4 4 as against the weight of the evidence ” at the end of the first sentence of the second paragraph are deleted therefrom. The final sentence of the last paragraph is deleted and the following substituted therefor: 44 The verdict is set aside on the court’s own motion and as to the defendant Seaman a new trial ordered.”
#### Baltazar R. FLORES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Walter E. CRAVEN, Warden, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 74-1123.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Sept. 10, 1974.

Certiorari Denied Jan. 27, 1975.

See 95 S.Ct. 833.

*1031Michael J. McCabe of Federal Defenders, Inc., San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.

Jay M. Bloom, Asst. Atty. Gen., San Diego, Cal., for defendant-appellee.

Before CHAMBERS and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and KELLEHER,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Robert J. Kelleher, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM

PER CURIAM.

Flores was convicted in a California court on a narcotics charge. His co-defendant, Ramirez, became the principal witness against him after Ramirez and the prosecutor struck a bargain that all charges pending against Ramirez would be dropped, his federal parole would be revoked, and he would be sent to a federal hospital for treatment of his heroin addiction for the remainder of his parole term. Ramirez testified to the substance of this bargain on direct examination, but one element of it he did not reveal. The prosecutor possessed evidence which formed the basis for a new narcotics charge against Ramirez. After Ramirez had agreed to testify, the prosecutor informed him of this potential charge, but promised that it would not be formally filed unless it became necessary to use the charge to assure that his federal parole was revoked.

 Flores claims that the prosecution, by failing to elicit testimony or otherwise disclose the existence of this element of the bargain, suppressed evidence material to a determination of Ramirez’s credibility. To justify a new trial, the unrevealed evidence must have some possibility of affecting the judgment of the trier of fact. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972). Here the trial judge, sitting without a jury, was aware that Ramirez was testifying in return for a promise of leniency, that his parole resulting from a conviction on federal charges was to be revoked, and that he was a heroin addict. This information encompassed all of the essential facts needed to weigh the credibility of the witness. Under these circumstances, knowledge of the additional charge, *1032which at no time had been used to threaten Ramirez with an increased term of imprisonment, and the arrangement concerning it could not have affected the judge’s estimation of credibility. A new trial is not required. Id.

The order appealed from is affirmed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 26, 2018

No. 04-18-00396-CV

TEXAS ARMORING CORPORATION,

Appellant

v.

Tinyan OKUNBO,

Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-18380

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The court reporter responsible for filing the portion of the reporter’s record relating to the 

May 1, 2018 hearing on the motion for new trial, Angeliz Rivera, filed a letter informing the 

court that the reporter’s record has not been filed because appellant has failed to pay or make 

arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the reporter’s record.

 We, therefore, ORDER appellant to provide written proof to this court within ten 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, appellant’s brief will be due within 

thirty days from the date of this order, and the court will only consider 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).

_________________________________

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

court on this 26th day of July, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
Bet ty Jo Le ona rd ' From th e 32 0th Distri ct Court

Ap pel lan t O f Potter C ounty v . No. 07-0 7-00 249 -CR ' Jul y 6, 2007 The Stat e of Tex as ' Opinio n by Justice Pirtle Ap pel lee JUDGMENT

Pursuantto the o pin ion of the C our t dat ed J uly

6, 2007, iti s o rd ered, a dju dg ed and dec re ed th at t hisappeal i s d is mis sed. Ina smu ch as this is an ap pea l in fo rma p aup eris, no cost s beyond th ose which mayhav e been pai d are adj udg ed. It is fu rther orde red, ad judged a nd d ecr e e d t h a tinasm uch a s the ap pea l is dis mis sed at ap pel lan t’ s req uest , no moti on for re hear ing w il l be ent ertai ned, and our mandate w il l is sue forthw it h. It is furth er

ordered th at t hisdec is ion be c erti fied bel ow for o bser

v ance. o O o
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 236/2006

of 9 February 2006         

fixing the export refunds on cereals and on wheat or rye flour, groats and meal

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The export refunds on the products listed in Article 1(a), (b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003, excluding malt, exported in the natural state, shall be as set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 10 February 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 9 February 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

(2)OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

----

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 9 February 2006 fixing the export refunds on cereals and on wheat or rye flour, groats and meal

----