alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
33-5609 of Rockford Industries, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report, dated February
28, 1997, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Rockford Industries,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1996.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Costa Mesa, California
March 27, 1997







                                      - 55 -
mcrb-ex1013_477.htm



Exhibit 10.13

FIRST AMENDMENT

TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

This First Amendment (the “First Amendment”) to that certain Employment Agreement between Seres Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (together with any successor thereto, the “Company”), and John G. Aunins, Ph.D. (the “Executive”) dated as of August 10, 2015 (the “Employment Agreement”) is made as of February 8, 2017 (the “Amendment Date”), by and between the Company and the Executive.

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the terms of the Employment Agreement as set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company and the Executive hereby agree to the following:

1.Amendment to the Employment Agreement.  Effective as of the Amendment Date, the Employment Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

(a)The second sentence of Section 2(b) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:

“Executive’s annual incentive compensation under such incentive program (the “Annual Bonus”) shall be targeted at 40% of Executive’s Annual Base Salary.”

2.References.  The references to “this Agreement” in the Employment Agreement shall mean the Employment Agreement, as amended by this First Amendment.

3.No Other Amendment.  Except as expressly set forth in this First Amendment, the Employment Agreement shall remain unchanged and shall continue in full force and effect according to its terms.

4.Counterparts.  This First Amendment may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute one document.

5.Governing Law.  This First Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (without giving effect to any choice or conflict of laws provision or rule that would cause the application of the laws of any other jurisdiction).

6.Headings.  The headings in this First Amendment are for reference purposes only and will not in any way affect the meaning or interpretation of this First Amendment.  

7.Entire Agreement.  This First Amendment constitutes the entire agreement among the parties concerning the subject matter hereof and supersedes any prior representations, understandings or agreements.

 

 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment as of the Amendment Date.

 


	
SERES THERAPEUTICS, INC.

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
By: 
	
 
	
/s/ Roger J. Pomerantz

	
Name: 
	
 
	
Roger J. Pomerantz, M.D.

	
Title:
	
 
	
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board 




 


	
EXECUTIVE

	
 

	
/s/ John G. Aunins

	
John G. Aunins




 

2
<PAGE>


                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of uWink, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nolan K. Bushnell,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge:

(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.



November 21, 2005                                    By: /s/ NOLAN K. BUSHNELL
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Nolan K. Bushnell
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-KSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001013274
<NAME> IBW FINANCIAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          13,692
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           3,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 8,300
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     98,824
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        108,611
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,266
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 235,788
<DEPOSITS>                                     206,084
<SHORT-TERM>                                    10,466
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                920
<LONG-TERM>                                      1,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           637
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,681
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 235,788
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  9,401
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,876
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   784
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                16,061
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,199
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,405
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           10,656
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      510
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 109
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,936
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,830
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,830
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,313
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.06
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.20
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,006
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,267
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  7,544
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,177
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      758
<RECOVERIES>                                       337
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,266
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,266
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             10
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 March 3, 2015

d0223

Order 

Clerk

March 3, 2015

148814(35)(36)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148814

COA: 319151 

Wayne CC: 08-008639-FC

DERRICK LEE SMITH,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to add issues is GRANTED. The motion for 

reconsideration of this Court’s July 29, 2014 order is considered, and it is DENIED, 

because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

PERCY LEE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 100 EM 2017

O RDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 19 th day of January , 201 8

, Petitioner Percy Lee’s Application for

Exercise of Extraordinary Relief is hereby DENIED.

Chief Justice Saylor and Justices Baer and Todd did not participate in the

consideration or decision of this matter.
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 Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of Live Current
Media Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, C. Geoffrey Hampson, Chief Executive Officer and Principal
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to s.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;
and




(2)
              The
      information contained in the Report fairly represents, the financial
      condition and result of operations of the
  Company.






/s/C. Geoffrey
Hampson


C.
Geoffrey Hampson


Chief
Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer


November
20, 2009
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 16

Letterhead
Ernst & Young LLP          2049 Century Park East          Los Angeles, CA 90067



September 30, 1996


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20549


Gentlemen:

We have read Item 4 of Form 8-K dated September 17, 1996, of Inco Homes
Corporation and are in agreement with the statements contained in Item 304(a),
(i) as they relate to E&Y, (ii), (iv), (v) and the first sentence of (vi). We
have no basis to agree or disagree with other statements of the registrant
contained therein.

                                        Sincerely,

                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
                                        --------------------------------
                                            ERNST & YOUNG LLP




                                       4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                          5
<CIK>                                              0001013167
<NAME>                                Smith Barney Mid-West Futures Fund L.P. II

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                       DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                                     98,812,037
<SECURITIES>                                                4,837,350
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 349,777
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          103,999,164
<PP&E>                                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            103,999,164
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       2,682,090
<BONDS>                                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0
<PREFERRED>                                                         0
<COMMON>                                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                                101,317,074
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              103,999,164
<SALES>                                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           17,276,058
<CGS>                                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            6,020,865
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            11,255,193
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0
<CHANGES>                                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                               11,255,193
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                    196.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       0


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-1064

MARY W. MCMILLAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CA-99-2-3)

Submitted: May 13, 1999 Decided: May 19, 1999

Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary W. McMillan, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

December 18, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on January 6, 1999. Pursuant to Rules

58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the

date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as

the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Mary W. McMillan appeals the district court’s order denying

her leave to proceed in forma pauperis in her civil action. The

denial of in forma pauperis status is an immediately appealable

order. See Roberts v. United States District Court, 339 U.S. 844,

845 (1950). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

order and find no abuse of discretion. We therefore deny leave to

proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss this appeal of the district

court’s order. See McMillan v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, No.

CA-99-2-3 (E.D. Va. Jan. 6, 1999).* We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 10.128
                                 --------------




                                       AB

                      Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc.
                        150 East 58th Street, Suite 3238
                               New York, NY 10155
                Telephone (212)-308-5800 Facsimile (212)-753-0731
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Delivered via US Mail and Facsimile 203-878-5071

January 30, 2004

Mr. David Melina
Milford Capital & Management
125 Old Gate Lane
P.O. Box 3048 Milford, CT 06460

Dave:

This letter serves to memorialize the following  terms and conditions  agreed to
in our meeting on January 23, 2004 in your offices:

The  Milford  Capital  Component  of  the  secured  Loan  to  Commodore  Applied
Technologies, Inc. currently has the following features:

         o    Principal: $187,959
         o    Forbearance Fee: $59,537
         o    Exit Fee: $50,000
         o    Accrued Interest as of December 31, 2003: $59,990
         o    Warrants:  166,667  warrants for Commodore  Applied  Technologies,
              Inc. common stock priced at $0.21, expiration date June 3, 2006.

In addition, Commodore agrees to add the following to the Milford Capital Note:

         o    $300,000 of principal - non interest bearing

         o    250,000 warrants for Commodore Applied  Technologies,  Inc. common
              stock  priced at close of market on February  1, 2004,  expiration
              date February 1, 2009.

                                       1
<PAGE>

         o    Payments  of $5000  per  month  beginning  February  2004 to cover
              current interest on Milford Note with any remaining monies applied
              to accrued interest on Milford Note.
         o    First principal  Payment due on December 31, 2004 in the amount of
              $60,000.  Subsequent payments of principal due at the end of every
              fiscal  quarter  through  September  31,  2005,  in the  amount of
              $60,000.  On  December  31,  2005,  the  remaining  balance of any
              remaining principal amounts,  forbearance fees, and exit fees will
              be due and payable.

Please  confirm  your  agreement  with these terms and  conditions  by signature
below:




--------------------------------
/s/ David Melina
MILFORD CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC.





--------------------------------
/s/ James DeAngelis
COMMODORE APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.




Best Regards,

Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc.
/s/ James M. DeAngelis
Sr. Vice President, Chief Financial and Administrative Officer

Cc:      Shelby T. Brewer, CXII Board of Directors

Enclosures:       None


                                        2
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARMANDO BARRAGAN-GARFIAS,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-73869

Agency No. A088-197-178

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 8, 2012** 

Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Armando Barragan-Garfias, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to

reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of

discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo due process claims. 

FILED

AUG 16 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-73869

Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for

review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Barragan-Garfias’ motion to

reopen on the ground that he did not demonstrate prejudice from the alleged

ineffective assistance of his former counsel. Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 899-90. 

Barragan-Garfias failed to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding

of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture. See Ordonez v.

INS, 345 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir. 2003) (a motion to reopen will not be granted

unless the respondent establishes a case of prima facie eligibility for the underlying

relief sought.)

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

Judge Berzon: 

I would instruct, prior to issuing a decision on the merits, that the parties

confer with the Ninth Circuit Mediation Office regarding whether they wish to

engage in mediation.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published

and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-50477

(Summary Calendar)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JORGE LUIS ROSALES,

a/k/a JORGE ESTRADA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(90-CR-266)

January 25, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jor ge Luis Rosales, a/k/a Jorge Estrada, argues that the district court ordered that his

sentence be served consecutively to his state sentence b ased on the district court’s mistaken

assumption that it was bound by the policy statements in Chapter 7 of the S ent encing Guidelines.

Estrada seeks to have the case remanded to the district court for resentencing.

There was no argument presented in the distri ct co urt concerning whether the policy

statements were obligatory in imposing sentence, and Estrada failed to raise the issue after the

imposition of the consecutive sentence although the district court gave him the opportuni ty to do so.2

Therefore, the issue must be reviewed for plain error. S ee United States v. Kroust

, 66 F.3d 1420,

1433-34 (5th Cir. 1995) (a party must raise a claim of error in such a manner so that the district court

may correct itself, and avoid the need for appellate review).

Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b), this court may correct forfeited errors only when the appellant

shows the following factors: (1) there is an error, (2) that is clear or obvious, and (3) that affects his

substantial rights. U nited States v. Calverley

, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). If these

factors are established, the decision to correct the forfeited error is within the sound discretion of the

co urt , and the court will not exercise that discretion unless the error seriously affects the fairness,

integrity, or public reputati on of judicial proceedings. U nited States v. Olano

, 113 S. Ct. 1770, 1776-

79 (1993), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1266 (1995).

We have reviewed the record, including the transcrip t o f the sentencing hearing, and the

b riefs, and have determined that the district court did not commit plain error i n imposing a

consecutive sentence.

AFFIRMED.
Resignation


 


Lewis
Jaffe


 


Director


 


July
31, 2015


 


Cyclone
Power Technologies, Inc.


601
NE 26th Court


Pompano
Beach, FL 33064


 


RE:
Resignation


 


Please
accept my resignation as Director of Cyclone Power Technologies, Inc. effective Immediately.


 


Kindest
Regards


 


	 	 






Lewis
Jaffe