alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.12

                                FIRST AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                           5% SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE


            THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO 5% SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE (this
"Amendment") is made and entered into as of April 17, 2002, by E.DIGITAL
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation ("Maker") in favor of IMMANUEL KANT
INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, or its registered assigns ("Payee").

                                 R E C I T A L S

         A. Maker has previously executed and delivered to Payee that certain 5%
Secured Promissory Note dated January 18, 2002 (the "Note"), in the original
principal amount of One Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,200,000).

         B. Payee and Maker desire to modify the Note as set forth herein.

         NOW, THEREFORE, for a valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy
of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

         1. MATURITY DATE. The "Maturity Date" referenced in the Section 1(a) of
the Note is hereby extended from April 18, 2002 to May 2, 2002.

         2. EFFECTIVE AMENDMENT. Except as expressly modified, altered or
supplemented herein, all of the provisions of the Note remain in full force and
effect; provided, however, that in the event of any conflict between the
provisions of the Note and the provisions of this Amendment, the provisions of
this Amendment shall control.

         3. COUNTERPARTS. This Amendment may be executed in two or more
counterparts each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which taken
together shall constitute but one and the same Amendment.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this First
Amendment to 5% Secured Promissory Note as of the date first above written.

                                    "MAKER"

                                    E.DIGITAL CORPORATION, a Delaware
                                    corporation



                                    By:
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                    Title:
                                          --------------------------------------

                                     "PAYEE"

                                    IMMANUEL KANT INTERNATIONAL LIMITED


                                     By:
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                     Title:
                                           -------------------------------------
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

STEVEN BURDA, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

ALLA KORENMAN (F/K/A ALLA BURDA),

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 41 MM 2015 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 8th day of April, 2015, the “Emergency Application for 

Extraordinary Relief” and the Application for Relief are DENIED.
<PAGE>
 
                                   EXHIBIT 11
                                   ----------



                          BENTHOS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY

                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            Years Ended September 30,
                                                      1997            1996             1995
<S>                                               <C>             <C>             <C>
 
Net income                                          $1,558,406      $1,171,334       $  161,807
                                                    ----------      ----------       ----------
Weighted average common shares
outstanding                                          1,225,722       1,190,529        1,226,396
                                                     
Common stock equivalents
  outstanding, pursuant to the
  treasury stock method                                144,653         116,393          108,771
                                                    ----------      ----------       ----------
Weighted average number of                          
  common and common equivalent
  shares outstanding                                 1,370,375       1,306,922        1,335,167
                                                    ==========      ==========       ==========
Net income per common and                                                                      
  common equivalent share     
  outstanding                                       $     1.14      $      .90       $      .12 
                                                    ==========      ==========       ==========  
                                                    
</TABLE>
COURTNEY J. PRESTON,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-4149

Opinion filed April 8, 2015.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistant of Appellate Counsel -- Original 

Jurisdiction.

Courtney J. Preston, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Virginia Harris, Assistant Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the 

merits.

ROWE, MARSTILLER, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 31.2

I, Scott Spangenberg, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Tut Systems, Inc. (the registrant);

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls
and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of this annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 14, 2006



By:

/s/    SCOTT SPANGENBERGScott SpangenbergVice President, Finance and Administration, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SPX CORPORATION,

Appellant

v.

PENTAIR SUDMO GMBH, 

FKA SUDMO HOLDING GMBH,

Appellee

______________________ 

2014-1716

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. 95/001,797, 

95/001,834, 95/001,873.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

JOHN T. BATTAGLIA, Fisch Sigler LLP, Washington, 

DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by ALAN M.

FISCH, ALICIA MEROS CARNEY. 

MICHAEL A. LAVINE, St. Onge Steward Johnston & 

Reens, LLC, Stamford, CT, argued for appellee. Also 

represented by STEVEN B. SIMONIS, BENJAMIN J.

LEHBERGER, WESLEY W. WHITMYER. 
 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (DYK, MAYER, and REYNA, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 April 8, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
<TABLE>


                                                                                                 EXHIBIT 11


                                     BERGEN BRUNSWIG CORPORATION
                                     ---------------------------
                                  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                            FOR THE THREE YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
                        (in thousands except for share and per share amounts)
<CAPTION>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Years Ended
                                                                                 September 30,
                                                                    ---------------------------------------
                                                                        1997          1996         1995
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                                 <C>              <C>          <C>        
DATA AS TO EARNINGS
      Net earnings applicable to common and
          common equivalent shares                                      $81,679      $73,533      $63,942
                                                                    ======================================

DATA AS TO NUMBER OF COMMON AND
      COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARES:
      Weighted average number of Class A shares outstanding          50,206,625   49,974,063   49,485,838
      Common equivalent shares assuming issuance of shares
           represented by outstanding employees' stock options:
           Additional shares assumed to be issued                     2,328,118    2,092,007    1,642,799
           Reduction of such additional shares assuming
                proceeds invested in treasury stock (at average
                market prices during each year)                      (1,820,426)  (1,742,230)  (1,377,444)
                                                                    --------------------------------------
           Average number of common and common
                equivalent shares outstanding                        50,714,317   50,323,840   49,751,193
                                                                    ======================================

EARNINGS PER COMMON AND COMMON
      EQUIVALENT SHARE OUTSTANDING:
           Net earnings                                                $   1.61     $   1.46     $   1.29
                                                                    ======================================




</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting FirmWe hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3(Nos. 333-105754 and 333-106737) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-60544, 333-60536, 333-60546, 333-60548,333-60542, and 333-103292) of White Electronic Designs Corporation of our report dated December15, 2005 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule, management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectivenessof internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K./s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FREDYS A. MARTINEZ,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

JACK PALMER; NEVADA ATTORNEY

GENERAL,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 13-15537

D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00777-LRHVPC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 9, 2014

San Francisco, California

Before: KOZINSKI, RAWLINSON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Fredys A. Martinez (Martinez) challenges the district court’s

dismissal of his untimely federal habeas petition pursuant to the statute of

limitations set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act

(AEDPA). Martinez contends that he was entitled to equitable tolling because the

FILED

APR 10 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
prison failed to provide him with Spanish-language resources and he was unable to

timely obtain his files from his appellate counsel. 

 The district court permissibly held that equitable tolling based on

Martinez’s lack of English proficiency was unwarranted because Martinez was

able to obtain English translations during the AEDPA statute of limitations period. 

See Yeh v. Martel, 751 F.3d 1075, 1078 (9th Cir. 2014) (denying equitable tolling

because the petitioner received translation assistance during the limitations period).

Martinez did not satisfy his burden of demonstrating that it was impossible

for him to timely file his federal habeas petition due to the library paging system or

his administrative segregation. 

Even assuming that Martinez did not receive his files from his appellate

counsel until January, 2010, Martinez did not act with reasonable diligence by

delaying the filing of his federal habeas petition until seven months after he filed

his state habeas petition. See id. at 1079 (holding that the petitioner’s pattern of

delay reflected a lack of reasonable diligence).1

 

1

 Martinez alleges that his appellate counsel denied Martinez access to his

legal file for the entire limitations period. We do not condone this alleged conduct,

which is likely a violation of the Nevada professional rules of conduct. See Gibbs

v. LeGrand, 767 F.3d 879, 889 (9th Cir. 2014). However, to qualify for equitable

tolling, Martinez must establish both an extraordinary circumstance and reasonable

diligence. See id. at 889-90.

2
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an evidentiary

hearing because the record was sufficiently developed to resolve Martinez’s

equitable tolling claim. See Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 773 (9th Cir.

2010). 

AFFIRMED.

3
Marketing and Regulatory Programs – Agricultural Marketing Service – Specialty Crops Program – Specialty Crops Inspection Division 1 of 1

 

Inspection Aid No. 118

Canned Sweet Cherries Score Points - Whole - 100 Units July 2016

Factors Maximum Weight of Defects Permitted for the Respective Grade

Color Grade A

V1

B

V1

C

Points V1 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 232 222 212

Ripe, Bright, Well Mature Reasonably Ripe, Bright, Mature Fairly Ripe, Bright and Mature, Fairly Uniform

B – Reasonably Good 0 0 0 0 0 --- --- --- - --- --- ---

C – Fairly Good 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- --- ---

Uniformity of Size Points 20 19 18 17 16 152 142

Un-pitted Style

Less than 1/10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1-2 3-5 3

Weight Variation more than 100% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pitted and Un-pitted Styles Diameter Variation

Exceed 1/16 inch 0 1-7 8-15 6 --- --- - --- ---

Exceed 1/8 inch 0 0 0 0 1-7 8-15 6 --- ---

Exceed 3/16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 May Vary MV

Defects Points 30 29 28 27 263 253 243 233 223 213

HEM & Stems over 1⁄2 inch 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2

Portions of stems not longer than 1⁄2 in. 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4-5 3

Portions of stems not longer than 1⁄4 in. 0 0 0 1 1 2-4 5-7 8 3 9-11 12-14 15-17 6

Pits in pitted style 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Total slightly damaged, damaged, 

seriously damaged, slightly 

misshapen, misshaped, blemished, 

seriously blemished (including)

0 1-3 4-7 8-10 4 11-13 14-17 18-20 7 21-23 24-26 27-30 9

Except slightly misshapen

11-12 13-14 15 6

Damaged, seriously damaged, 

misshapen, blemished and 0 1 2-3 4-5 3 6-7 8-9 10 4 Except damaged & misshaped

Seriously blemished include SD & SB 0 0 1 2 2 3 3 4 2 Except damaged & misshaped

Character Points 20 19 18 173 163 153 143

Process cracks in un-pitted style 0 1-2 3-5 3 6-7 8-10 4 --- --- --

B- Reasonably good character 0 1-5 6-10 4 --- --- - --- --- --

C-Fairly good character 0 0 0 0 1-5 6-10 4 --- --- --

Markedly flabby 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1-5 6-10 4

Thin flashed (Un-pitted only) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- --- --

 

1 V columns are allowance s for verification sample of 20 units.

2 Partial Limiting Rule

3

Limiting Rule SD= seriously damaged; SB=seriously blemished. MV=may vary
391 A.2d 707

#### Continental Bank v. Triester, Appellant, et al.

Submitted September 12, 1977.

John F. Hunt and Edward M. Dunham, Jr., for appellant; Richard M. Rosenbleeth, and Blank, Rome, Klaus & Comisky, for appellee.

Order affirmed.

WATKINS, former P. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Matthew J. Assiff, certify that:

 

1.              I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Copano Energy, L.L.C.;

 

2.              Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

 

3.              Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 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-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)             Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

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

 

a)             All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)             Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

Date: August 15, 2005

 

 
|   | /s/ MATTHEW J. ASSIFF                             |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|   | Matthew J. Assiff                                 |
|   | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
<PAGE>
                                                               Exhibit 4(f)(iii)

                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
                                       OF
                      NEW YORK COMMUNITY CAPITAL TRUST III

     This Certificate of Trust of New York Community Capital Trust III ("Trust")
is being duly executed and filed by the undersigned trustees to form a business
trust under the Delaware Business Trust Act (12 Del. C.(S)3801 et seq.) (the
                                                ---  -         -- ---
"Act").

          1.   Name. The name of the business trust formed hereby is New York
               ----
               Community Capital Trust III.

          2.   Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee of
               ----------------
               the Trust in the State of Delaware is Wilmington Trust Company,
               Rodney Square North, 1100 N. Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware
               19890-0001, Attention: Corporate Trust Administration.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate of Trust
in accordance with Section 3811 of the Act.

                               WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, not in its individual
                               capacity but solely as Trustee


                               By:  /s/ Donald G. MacKelcan
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                      Name:  Donald G. MacKelcan
                                      Title: Vice President


                                /s/ Joseph R. Ficalora
                               -------------------------------------------------
                               Joseph R. Ficalora, not in his
                               individual capacity but as Administrative Trustee


                                /s/ Robert Wann
                               -------------------------------------------------
                               Robert Wann, not in his
                               individual capacity but as Administrative Trustee


                                /s/ Thomas R. Cangemi
                               -------------------------------------------------
                               Thomas R. Cangemi, not in his
                               individual capacity but as Administrative Trustee