alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                EXHIBIT 10.3(b)


                               August 25, 2000

Aames Capital Corporation
350 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California  90071

               Re:  Second Amended and Restated Master Repurchase Agreement
                    Governing Purchases and Sales of Mortgage Loans, dated as
                    of April 28, 2000, as amended by the First Amendment to
                    Second Amended and Restated Master Repurchase Agreement
                    Governing Purchases and Sales of Mortgage Loans dated as
                    of June 1, 2000 (together, the "Master Repurchase
                    Agreement"), between Aames Capital Corporation as Seller,
                    and Lehman Commercial Paper Inc. as Buyer.

Gentlemen:

     Reference is made to the Master Repurchase Agreement. Capitalized terms
used but not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Master
Repurchase Agreement.

     Buyer hereby notifies Seller that Section 13(a)(xv) of the Agreement is
hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

     "the Leverage Ratio of the Guarantor as calculated on the last Business
     Day of each month shall exceed (a) prior to and on June 30, 2000, 13.0
     to 1.0, (b) after June 30, 2000 and prior to and on July 31, 2000, 12.0
     to 1.0, (c) after July 31, 2000 and prior to and on August 31, 2000,
     10.99 to 1.0 and (d) after August 31, 2000 and prior to and on the
     earlier to occur of September 30, 2000 and the closing of a
     Securitization (as such term is defined in the Fee Letter), 10.00 to
     1.0;"

     If you are in agreement with the foregoing terms of this letter
agreement, please execute all of the enclosed copies and return two fully
executed copies to the undersigned.

                                       Very truly yours,

                                       LEHMAN COMMERCIAL PAPER INC.

                                       By:  /s/ Fred C. Madonna
                                          -----------------------------------
                                            Name: Fred C. Madonna
                                            Title: Authorized Signature

Accepted and Agreed to:

AAMES CAPITAL CORPORATION

By: /s/ John Kohler
------------------------------------
    Name: John Kohler
   Title: Executive Vice President
EXHIBIT 32.1

GENAERA CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Genaera Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John L. Armstrong, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to section 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, 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 Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ John L. Armstrong, Jr.           
|John L. Armstrong, Jr.               
|President and Chief Executive Officer

August 9, 2006
#### State v. Kehano

22892

02/12/2001

Affirmed
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 21

                   SUBSIDIARIES OF AMERICAN HEALTHCHOICE, INC.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                   SUBSIDIARY                                                    CLINIC
                                   ----------                                                    ------
<S>                                                                               <C>
1.   AHC Chiropractic Clinics, Inc., a Texas corporation                     Bandera, Wurzbach, San Pedro & Katy
                                                                              chiropractic

     AHC Physicians Corporation, Inc., a Texas corporation                   San Pedro & Southcross medical

     AHC Physicians Corporation, Inc., a Georgia corporation                 Peachtree, Conyers & McDonough medical

     Total Medical Diagnostics, Inc., a Delaware corporation                 Inactive

     Nationwide Sports and Injury, Inc., a Texas corporation                 Bandera, Wurzbach, San Pedro & Katy
                                                                              Physical therapy

     United Chiropractic Clinics of Uptown, Inc., a Louisiana corporation    Uptown

     New Orleans East Chiropractic Clinics, Inc., a Louisiana corporation    New Orleans East

     AHC Clinic Management, L.L.C., a Texas limited liability company        Inactive

     AHI Management, Inc., a Texas corporation                               Corporate office

     Diagnostic Services, Inc., a Texas corporation                          Inactive

     Katy Sports Injury and Rehab, Incorporated, a Texas corporation         Inactive

     Pacific Chiropractic (San Pedro), Incorporated,
      d/b/a United Chiropractic Clinic, a Texas corporation                  Inactive

     Apple Chiropractic Clinic of Wurzbach, Incorporated,
      a Texas corporation                                                    Inactive

     Valley Family Health Center, L.L.C., a Texas
      limited liability company                                              Valley Family chiropractic
</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.67


 



AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EQUITY PURCHASE AGREEMENT


THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EQUITY PURCHASE AGREEMENT ("Amendment No. 1") is entered into effective as of the date of the last signature (the "Effective Date"), by and between CANNASYS, INC., a Nevada corporation ("CannaSys"), and KODIAK CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Kodiak"), and amends that certain Equity Purchase Agreement dated December 15, 2015, between CannaSys and Kodiak (the "EPA").


Recital


CannaSys and Kodiak desire to amend the EPA to extend the Commitment Period to December 31, 2017, on the terms and conditions set forth herein. Capitalized terms used in and not defined in this Amendment No. 1 have the meanings given them in the EPA, as applicable.


Agreement


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing Recital (which is incorporated herein by this reference), the respective representations, warranties, covenants, and agreements set forth in this Amendment No. 1, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and confirmed, the parties agree as follows:


1. Amendment to EPA. On the Effective Date, the EPA is hereby amended by deleting the definition of "Commitment Period" in Section 1.1 in its entirety and replacing it with the following







"COMMITMENT PERIOD" shall mean the period commencing on the Execution Date and ending on the date on which Investor shall have purchased Put Shares pursuant to this Agreement for an aggregate Purchase Price of the Maximum Commitment Amount or December 31, 2017.







2. General.







(a) Except as amended hereby, the EPA shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. Reference to this Amendment No. 1 need not be made in the EPA or any other instrument or document executed in connection therewith, or in any certificate, letter, or communication issued or made pursuant to, or respecting, the EPA, any reference in any of such items to the EPA being sufficient to refer to the EPA, as amended.







(b) This Amendment shall be governed by and construed under and in accordance with the laws of the state of California without regard to the principals of conflicts of law.







(c) This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts (and any counterpart may be executed by original, portable document format (pdf), or facsimile signature), each of which when executed and delivered shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.








1




















IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment No.1 as of the dates set forth below.












CANNASYS, INC.




By: /s/ Michael Tew


Name: Michael Tew


Its: CEO


Date: 12/14/2016







KODIAK CAPITAL GROUP, LLC




By: /s/ Ryan Hodson


Name: Ryan Hodson


Its: Managing Member


Date: 12/15/2016








2
November 24, 1997

19907

#### State v. Pikini

Vacated
# C_2019399EN.01005401.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/54

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — YL v Commission

(Case T-545/18) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2017 promotion procedure - Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 7 with effect from 1 January 2017 - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Article 9(3) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Misuse of powers - Disciplinary measure)

(2019/C 399/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: YL (represented by: P. Yon and B. de Lapasse, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: L. Radu Bouyon and R. Striani, and subsequently by: L. Radu Bouyon and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU, first, for annulment of the Commission Decision, communicated to the staff of that institution on 13 November 2017, not to promote the applicant to grade AD 7 during the 2017 promotion procedure, second, for promotion of the applicant to grade AD 7 with effect from 1 January 2017 and, third, for compensation for the damage which the applicant allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders YL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders YL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---
Exhibit 31.1 (a)
CERTIFICATIONS

I, W. Edd Helms, Jr., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Edd Helms Group, 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 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(s)  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  officer(s) 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; and

Date:    February 2, 2006

/s/ W. Edd Helms, Jr
------------------------------------
By:   W. Edd Helms, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer
H. Res. 152 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

March 19, 2015. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 132) providing for 

the expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives in the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress. The 

amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 

accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. 

The resolution, as amended, shall be considered as read. The 

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution, as amended, to adoption without intervening motion or 

demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour of 

debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration; and (2) one motion to recommit which may not contain 

instructions. 

SEC. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 

order to consider in the House the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 

8) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 
2 

•HRES 152 EH 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Labor Relations Board relating to representation case 

procedures. All points of order against consideration of the 

joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the 

joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall be 

considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any 

amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce; and (2) one motion to commit. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

APHIS BRS Adds Flexibility to

Importation Permits in APHIS eFile

Print

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS) Biotechnology Regulatory Services (BRS) is announcing a new importation

flexibility for permits in APHIS eFile. 

In response to stakeholder feedback to simplify and streamline the APHIS BRS

permit application process, applicants may now include multiple-origin locations and

multiple-destination locations in a single APHIS importation permit. This flexibility

will reduce the number of permits a stakeholder may need to import regulated

material into the United States, saving time and resources. 

APHIS BRS updated its APHIS 2000 Permit Application and Compliance Reporting Job

Aid to reflect this new permitting flexibility. Applicants can find this Job Aid and other

APHIS eFile training resources on the APHIS website at: USDA APHIS | APHIS eFile

Training.
18747, 18748, 18749, 18750

#### State v. Kieu; State v. Trang; State v. Luong; State v. Phan

December 17, 1996

Order No. 96-49

Affirmed in part, vacated in part
#### Mazel Associates, Inc., Respondent, *v.*Herman A. Bogdan, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

February 11, 1959.

*Milton 1. Weintraub*for appellant.

No one appearing *for*respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The service of a bill of particulars in compliance with a conditional order of preclusion was improperly rejected by the plaintiff and it was error for the lower court *201to deny defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to accept the bill. This determination, however, is without prejudice to plaintiff’s application for a further bill or final order of preclusion, if it is so advised, upon a statement showing in what respect it deems the bill insufficient.

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs, and motion granted.

Concur — Hecht, J. P., Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.
EX-(4).(b)



 CONTRACT DATA PAGE 

 

					
	 Contract Number: [P9999999999]
	 	 Contract Date: [May 2, 2016]
	  	


					
			
	 Owner: [JOHN DOE]
	  	 [Date of Birth: [March 1, 1976]
	  	 Age at Issue: [38]

			
	 [Owner: [JANE DOE]
	  	 Date of Birth: [June 10, 1976]
	  	 Age at Issue: [37]]

			
	 Annuitant: [JOHN DOE]
	  	 Date of Birth: [March 1, 1976]
	  	 Age at Issue: [38]

			
	 [Annuitant: [JANE DOE]
	  	 Date of Birth: [June 10, 1976]
	  	 Age at Issue: [37]]


 Beneficiary: As named by You 

Initial Purchase Payment: [$25,000.00] 
 Maximum
Purchase Payment Without Our Approval: [$1,000,000] 
 Purchase Payment Age Limit: Prior to the
86th birthday 
 Minimum Subsequent Purchase Payment: $500 

Fixed Account Option(s) Minimum Guaranteed Interest Rate: [1.0%] 

Minimum Partial Withdrawal Amount: $1,000 
 Minimum
Systematic Withdrawal Amount: $100 
 Minimum Amount Remaining After Any Partial Withdrawal: $2,500 

Premium Tax: None 
 Minimum Transfer Amount: $100

 Separate Account Charge (including guaranteed death benefit risk charge of [0.10%]): [0.50%] 

Annual Contract Maintenance Fee: $0 
 Transfer
Fee: $25 
 Earliest Annuity Date After the Contract Date: Two years 

Latest Annuity Date: 1st day of the month following Your 95th Birthday 
 Separate Account: Variable Separate Account 

 

							
	



	 	 Optional Elections:

Maximum Anniversary Value
	  	 Optional Election Details:

See Attached Endorsement AGE-8023
	  	




	 	  	  


  

					
	AG-805-DP (1/16)	  	3
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

NADPRP Funded Projects

Last Modified: 

Print

APHIS has invested tens of millions of dollars to support hundreds of National Animal

Disease Preparedness and Response Program (NADPRP) projects. Find information

about the number and types of projects we have funded.

Lists of Funded Projects

FY 2023 Tribal Funding Opportunity: Awarded Projects 

FY 2023 General Funding Opportunity: Awarded Projects 

FY 2022 General Funding Opportunity: Awarded Projects 

FY 2021 General Funding Opportunity: Awarded Projects 

FY 2021 Joint NAHLN/NADPRP Funding Opportunity: Awarded Projects 

FY 2020 General Funding Opportunity: Awarded Projects
# C_2019016EN.01003002.xml

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/30

---

Action brought on 30 October 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-676/18)

(2019/C 16/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Condou-Durande, C. Cattabriga and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt, by 30 September 2016, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions to comply with Directive 2014/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such laws, regulations and provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt, by 30 September 2016, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions to comply with Directive 2014/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such laws, regulations and provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28(1) of that directive;

| — | order the Kingdom of Belgium, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a periodic penalty payment of EUR 49 906,50 per day into an account to be notified by the Commission from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case for failure to fulfil the obligation to notify the measures transposing Directive 2014/36/EU; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Belgium, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a periodic penalty payment of EUR 49 906,50 per day into an account to be notified by the Commission from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case for failure to fulfil the obligation to notify the measures transposing Directive 2014/36/EU;

| — | order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Member States were required, under Article 28(1) of Directive 2014/36/EU, to take the national measures necessary to transpose the obligations of that directive by 30 September 2016. In the absence of notification of any measures transposing the directive by Belgium, the Commission has decided to bring an action before the Court of Justice.

In its application, the Commission proposes that a daily periodic penalty payment of EUR 49 906,50 be imposed on Belgium. The amount of the penalty payment has been calculated by taking into account the seriousness and length of the infringement, as well as the dissuasive effect on the basis of that Member State’s ability to pay.

---

(1)  Directive 2014/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the conditions of entry and stay of third-country nationals for the purpose of employment as seasonal workers (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 375).

---
# C_2019230EN.01005302.xml

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/53

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Sumitomo Chemical and Tenka Best v Commission

(Case T-734/18 R)

(Interim measures - Biocidal products - Active substance empenthrin - Non-approval - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2019/C 230/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Sumitomo Chemical (UK) plc (London, United Kingdom), Tenka Best, SL (Aiguafreda, Spain) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, lawyer, and V. McElwee, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek and R. Lindenthal, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck and P. Cottin, acting as Agents, and by A. Poppe and E. Jacubowitz, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the suspension of the operation of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1251 of 18 September 2018 not approving empenthrin as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-type 18 (OJ 2018 L 235, p. 24).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---