alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

AFS-12-158-P 

November 7, 2012 

Mr. Joseph E. Olsavsky 

Senior Manager, HRC Regulatory Affairs 

Philips Respironics 

1740 Golden Mile Highway 

Monroeville, PA 15146 

Dear Mr. Olsavsky: 

In your January 5, 2012, letter, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

 (FAA) to amend Special Federal Aviation Regulation 106, Section 2 and Section 3(a) of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). This amendment would include Philips 

Respironics Simply Go Portable Oxygen Concentrators (POC) as an approved POC for 

on board aircraft. 

 

The FAA amended SFAR 106 on October 16, 2012 (77 FR 63217) to add the following 

POC devices that may be carried on and used by a passenger on board an aircraft: 

 AirSep Focus 

 AirSep Freestyle 5 

 Inogen One G3 

 Inova Labs LifeChoice Activox 

 Respironics Simply Go 

 Precision Medical EasyPulse 

 SeQual SAROS 

Therefore, we will take no further action on this petition and Docket No. FAA-2009-1059 

is being closed. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Ida M. Klepper 

Manager, Airmen and 

Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
doc1.htm

EXHIBIT 10.1
 
SECOND AMENDMENT TO BRIDGE LOAN AGREEMENT
 
THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO BRIDGE LOAN AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is dated as of January 5, 2017, by and between SolarWindow Technologies, Inc. (“Borrower”), a Nevada corporation and Kalen Capital Holdings, LLC (“Creditor”) a Delaware limited liability corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Kalen Capital Corporation (“KCC”), a corporation organized under the laws of the Province of Alberta, Canada.
 
WHEREAS, Borrower entered into a Bridge Loan Agreement dated as of March 4, 2015, as amended by the Amendment to Bridge Loan Agreement dated as of December 7, 2016 (collectively, the “Loan Agreement”) with 1420468 Alberta Ltd. (“1420468 Alberta”), pursuant to which 1420468 Alberta provided Borrower with a loan in the principal amount of $600,000, with a maturity date of December 31, 2016;
 
WHEREAS, on or about December 31, 2015, 1420468 Alberta was amalgamated into KCC, with KCC being the surviving legal entity and the holder of the Promissory Note, which it assigned to Creditor; and
 
WHEREAS, Borrower and Creditor desire to extend the maturity date of the Loan to December 31, 2017;
 
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, in consideration of their mutual covenants hereinafter set forth and intending to be legally bound hereby, agree as follows:
 
1.    Definitions.
 
All capitalized but undefined terms used herein shall have the mean set forth in the Bridge Loan Agreement.
 
2.    Extension of Maturity Date.
 
Borrower and Creditor hereby agree to extend the Maturity Date for payment of the Principal Amount and all interest due thereon to December 31, 2017 and all references in the Loan Agreement and Promissory Note to Maturity Date shall mean December 31, 2017.
 
3.    No Event of Default. 
 
No Event of Default has occurred and is continuing or exists. For purposes hereof, Creditor has agreed to waive any Event of Default of the Loan arising from Borrower’s failure to pay the Loan and the interest due thereon on December 31, 2016.
 
4.    No Other Changes. 
 
Other than as specifically set forth herein, the Loan Agreement remains in full force and effect.
 
5.    Counterparts. 
 
This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which when executed and delivered shall constitute an original and all of which together shall constitute a single agreement.
 
[Signature Page Follows]
	 
	2


	

	 


 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed and delivered this Agreement as of the date first above written.
 
SolarWindow Technologies, Inc.
 
By: /s/ John Conklin 
Name: John Conklin
Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
 
Kalen Capital Holdings, LLC
 
By: /s/ Harmel S. Rayat 
Name: Harmel S. Rayat
Title: President
 
	 
	3
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5525]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. HALL:
       H.R. 6234.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       The constitutional authority on which this bill rests is 
     the power of Congress to:
       1. regulate commerce . . . among the several states . . . 
     as enumerated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United 
     States Constitution, and
       2. provide for the general welfare of the United States as 
     enumerated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the 
     Constitution.
```
<PAGE>   1






                                                                      Exhibit 11

Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc.         
Computation of Per Share Earnings                                      20-Mar-97
For the Periods ended December 31
(Figures and amounts expressed in thousands, except per share and per option 
amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                     1996             1995             1994             1993
                                                                 ---------------   -------------   -------------    ------------
<S>   <C>                                                        <C>               <C>             <C>              <C>
A     Net Income as reported, Canadian GAAP                          $209,036          $159,486         $91,219         $44,697
B     Items adjusting net income                                      (7,216)            18,598         (4,539)           5,229
C     Net income, US GAAP (A+B)                                      $201,820          $178,084         $86,680         $49,926
D     Weighted average number of shares outstanding                    45,537            43,352          42,872          39,793
E     Options outstanding to purchase equivalent shares                 1,842             1,392           1,046             841
F     Average exercise price per option                                $52.90            $34.74          $18.00          $16.90
G     Average market price per share                                   $70.33            $52.44          $29.81          $22.94
H     Period end market price per share                                $85.00            $70.88          $34.00          $25.63
I     Rate of Return available on option proceeds                          5%                5%              5%              5%

Canadian GAAP

      Basic earnings per share (A/D)                                    $4.59             $3.68           $2.13           $1.12
      Fully diluted earnings per share
J     Imputed earnings on option proceeds (E*F*I)                      $4,873            $2,418            $941            $711
      Fully diluted earnings per share ((A+J)/(D+E))                    $4.51             $3.62           $2.10           $1.12

United States  GAAP

      Primary earnings per share
K     Net additional shares issuable (E-(E*F/G))                          457               470             414             221
      Primary earnings per share (C/(D+K))                              $4.39             $4.06           $2.00           $1.25
      Fully diluted earnings per share
L     Net additional shares issuable (E-(E*F/H))                          696               710             492             286
      Fully diluted earnings per share (C/(D+L))                        $4.37             $4.04           $2.00           $1.25
D+K   Weighted average shares  for US GAAP                             45,994            43,822          43,286          40,014
</TABLE>
SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA Douglas Cherry 2 custody and support case out of which the underlying child support enforcement action arises and in which the district court has apparently determined that petitioner is willfully underemployed.

Second, to the extent petitioner challenges his current confinement in the Clark County Detention Center, his petition indicates that he is set to be released on September 26, 2015. The warrant was served on August 27, 2015, but petitioner did not file this petition until September 22. The delay in challenging that confinement leaves this court with insufficient time to order an answer and deliberate on and resolve the petition before his release.

Third, to the extent petitioner challenges the most recent contempt finding and imposition of another 25-day term of conditional confinement from the hearing before the master on September 1, 2015, this writ petition appears premature. According to the appendix, petitioner has filed an objection in the lower court to the master's recommendation in which he raises issues about his inability to pay the arrears, and a hearing on that matter before the district court is set for October 13, 2015. 

### See NRS 425.3844. Under these circumstances, we decline to intervene at this time and we deny the petition. 

### See NRAP 21(b)(1); 

### Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (stating that a petition for extraordinary writ relief is purely discretionary with this court).

It is so ORDERED.

Parraguirre

(0) t94Thcc: Hon. Rena G. Hughes, District Judge, Family Court Division Jimmerson Hansen Attorney General/Carson City Juliann Fox Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3

071 1947A -
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Haynes, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.), rendered November 18, 1987, convicting him of burglary *139in the first degree, burglary in the second degree, robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree (two counts), endangering the welfare of a child (three counts), criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, sodomy in the first degree, attempted sodomy in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find no merit to the defendant’s contention that he was prejudiced by the court’s refusal to give a "missing witness” charge with respect to the People’s failure to call the complainant’s six-year-old son, the youngest of her three children, each of whom was present during the incident on which this prosecution is based and two of whom did testify. The defendant, who waited until the prosecution and the defense both rested before making a request for this charge, failed to make a threshold showing that this child, five years of age at the time of the commission of the crime, would have been in a position to provide material, noncumulative testimony. His untimely request was properly denied *(see, People v Gonzalez,*68 NY2d 424; *People v Waldron,*154 AD2d 635; *People v Dowd,*134 AD2d 275).

Equally without merit is the defendant’s argument that the court’s charge regarding how to evaluate a witness’s credibility was unbalanced. The trial court informed the jury that a witness has no moral or civic obligation to impart information to law enforcement officials and that they may consider a witness’s silence only insofar as it affects his credibility *(see, People v Dawson,*50 NY2d 311, 322; *People v Mullins,*118 AD2d 737). Our review of the record reveals that the court did not unduly highlight the fact that a defense witness did not come forward before trial, and we note it commented upon prior inconsistent statements of the People’s witnesses and the complainant’s husband’s criminal history as bearing on credibility.

We have examined the contentions raised in the defendant’s supplemental *pro se*brief and conclude that they are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the financial
statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                          2,885,517  
<SECURITIES>                    3,463,596  
<RECEIVABLES>                   8,057,159  
<ALLOWANCES>                    (42,000) 
<INVENTORY>                     23,272,516  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                34,479,997  
<PP&E>                          9,509,148  
<DEPRECIATION>                  4,376,600  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  53,254,508  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           7,625,044  
<BONDS>                         13,602,768  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0  
<PREFERRED>                     7,396  
<COMMON>                        31,919  
<OTHER-SE>                      26,621,893  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    53,254,508  
<SALES>                         46,562,870  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                46,562,870  
<CGS>                           27,288,130  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   27,288,130  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              922,464  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 2,491,168  
<INCOME-TAX>                    1,018,000  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             1,612,806  
<DISCONTINUED>                  0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0  
<CHANGES>                       0  
<NET-INCOME>                    1,612,806  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   .40  
<EPS-DILUTED>                   .40  
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>      5
<MULTIPLIER>   1
<CURRENCY>     U.S. Dollars
<CIK>          0000857351
<NAME>         Universal Express, Inc.





<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                   JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                     JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                  1
<CASH>                                53,873
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                        888,656
<ALLOWANCES>                        (107,600)
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     930,710
<PP&E>                               417,301
<DEPRECIATION>                      (229,624)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     4,530,724
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              6,675,821
<BONDS>                              810,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                             100,497
<OTHER-SE>                        (3,172,161)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       4,530,724
<SALES>                            5,881,967
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   5,881,967
<CGS>                              4,906,925
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      4,906,925
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   6,406,371
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   330,684
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (5,762,013)
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (5,762,013)
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                      (5,762,013)
<EPS-BASIC>                            (0.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (0.47)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF GENZYME DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, L.P. AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS INCLUDED IN THE ANNUAL
REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR 1998 FOR GENZYME DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, L.P.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                              97
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   187
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     187
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              406
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        (219)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       187
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    93
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (537)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (537)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (537)<F1>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Genzyme Development Partners, L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership. Net
earnings or loss is reported per Partnership Unit instead of per share. For
the year ended December 31, 1998, the Partnership's net loss was allocated $0
per limited partnership unit (737 units in total) and $537,000 to the General
Partner (1 unit).
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Delores Howard, as Administratrix of the Estate of Stephanie Howard, Deceased, Respondent, v State of New York, Appellant.

(Claim No. 74328.)

— Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Claimant’s intestate, Stephanie Howard, died on November 1, 1985, allegedly as the result of negligent medical care at SUNY Health Science Center, a medical facility operated by the State of New York. On October 29, 1986, claimant was appointed administratrix of the estate of Stephanie Howard and on January 15, 1987, she filed a notice of claim against the State of New York for wrongful death and for personal injuries suffered by decedent prior to death. On November 14, 1989, the court, *sua sponte,*dismissed the matter, insofar as it asserted a claim for personal injuries, as untimely filed and served.

Thereafter, on February 12, 1990, claimant moved to file a late notice of claim for personal injuries. By order entered October 12, 1990, the court granted the motion and deemed the original claim for wrongful death amended to assert a claim for personal injuries. Defendant appeals from that order and we affirm.

The original notice of claim, insofar as it asserts a claim for wrongful death, was timely because it was filed and served within 90 days from the appointment of the administratrix and within two years of death of decedent (Court of Claims Act § 10 [2]). It was untimely, however, insofar as it asserted a claim for conscious pain and suffering. A claim for personal injury must be filed within 90 days of the accrual of the claim (Court of Claims Act § 10 [3]). Claimant was required, therefore, to seek permission of the court to file a late notice of claim for personal injuries suffered by decedent. Permission may be granted to file a late notice at any time before an action asserting a like claim against a citizen would be barred under the provisions of CPLR article 2 (Court of Claims Act *635§ 10 [6]). Here, a new claim served and filed pursuant to the order entered October 12, 1990, would be barred by CPLR 214-a, which sets a 2 Vi year period for commencing an action for medical malpractice. As an amendment to the original claim, however, it relates back to the original claim and is deemed interposed at the time the original claim was interposed *(see,*CPLR 203 [e]; *Kaplan v State of New York,*152 AD2d 417, 419; *Matter of Iazzetta v State of New York,*105 Misc 2d 567). At the time the original claim was interposed, the cause of action for personal injuries would not be barred under CPLR 214-a because, at that time, *2Vi*years had not elapsed from the time the claim accrued.

Thus, the court had the power, in its discretion, to permit the late filing and service of the claim for personal injuries to relate back to the date of filing and service of the original claim. Based on the proof submitted in the motion for late filing, we conclude that the court properly exercised its discretion in granting the motion. (Appeal from Order of Court of Claims, Margolis, Israel, J. — Late Notice of Claim.) Present— Boomer, J. P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.