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




                                                                   Exhibit 10(b)
                                    AMENDMENT
                                    ---------


         THIS AMENDMENT is dated this 24th day of September, 1997 by and between
Moore U.S.A. Inc. ("Moore") and Angstrom Technologies, Inc. ("Angstrom").

         Moore and Angstrom are parties to an Agreement dated September 2, 1997,
and are mutually desirous of further amending and modifying that Agreement as
more particularly set forth in this Amendment.

         NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth
herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:

         1. Schedule A is amended to reflect the addition of US patent 5,666,417
which issued September 9, 1997. A revised Schedule A is attached hereto.

         2. Except to the extent that the Agreement is modified by this
Amendment, the Agreement continues in full force and effect and remains a valid
and binding obligation on each of the parties thereto.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as
of the date written above.

Moore U.S.A. Inc.                           Angstrom Technologies, Inc.

By: /s/ Michael C. Maier                    By:  /s/ Daniel A. Marinello
    --------------------                         -----------------------
Name:  Michael C. Maier                     Name:  Daniel A. Marinello
Title:  Assistant Secretary                 Title:  President & CEO
Exhibit 99.02

**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 Large Scale Biology Corporation Quarterly Report on Form10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ronald J. Artale, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-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)    | that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Large Scale Biology Corporation for thequarter covered by the Report. |

 

| Date:  May 14, 2003 | By:                                                                          | /s/ RONALD J. ARTALE |
|--------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------|
|                     |                                                                         |                      |
|                     | **Ronald J. Artale Chief Financial Officer Large Scale Biology Corporation** |

          A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Large Scale Biology Corporation and will be retained by Large Scale BiologyCorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-10363

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff−Appellee,

versus

MIGUEL UBBEN,

Defendant−Appellant,

NAVIDAD A. UBBEN,

Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:12-CV-649

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 8, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-10363 Document: 00512493100 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2014
No. 13-10363

In this civil action, the appellants challenge the garnishment of property 

by the United States in partial satisfaction of restitution imposed on an 

underlying criminal conviction. Appellant Navidad Ubben claims the property 

was her separate properly under Texas law and that the district court failed to 

follow state law by refusing to hold a hearing, thus denying procedural due 

process.

The district court issued a short but sufficiently explanatory order, dated 

January 24, 2013, noting that the Ubbens had the burden “to prove by clear 

and convincing evidence that the garnished accounts contain separate property, which usually requires tracing of the funds” (citing United States v. 

Ingram, No. 4:04-CV-868-A, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2102, at *13-14 (N.D. Tex. 

Feb. 14, 2005)). The court concluded that “[b]ecause [the Ubbens] have not 

made even the slightest attempt at showing that the accounts contain separate 

properly and have not disputed any facts raised by the government, a hearing 

is not necessary and the . . . exemption [from garnishment] does not apply.”

There is no error, and the judgment, being based on the Final Order of 

Garnishment, is AFFIRMED. 

2

 Case: 13-10363 Document: 00512493100 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2014
#### Henry et al., Appellees, *v.*The Columbus Depot Company, Appellant. 

(No. 27314

Decided January 11, 1939.)

*Mr. Donald, J. Hoskins*and *Mr. Maynard M. Donald*son, for appellees.

*Mr. J. M.*Schooler, for appellant.

It is ordered and adjudged that said appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the. reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Williams, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.

Day, J., not participating.
----

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 Destination Television, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending April 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gordon Scott Venters, President, 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; and

 (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

Date: June 21, 2009

/s/ Gordon Scott Venters  ____________________________  Gordon Scott Venters, President and  Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive Officer) and  Acting Chief Financial Officer  (Principal Financial Officer andPrincipal Accounting Officer)
### Contacts. With whom outside the FAAhasthis proposal been discussed? Organization Person Contacted Date Response Nalion~1 HU'iincss Aircraft A.ssociatiOIl Eli Cotti 

# , 

# - nl'gionai /\iriinc Associ;lIioll O~l\'CLotterer

... Ain:l'art Ownel's & !'iluts Association Robert Hackman 

## ,J , ATA Cr:dg Fabian
,.\TA M Lopez 

# , 09129/06
#### Creed Sangelton FLANARY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 29824.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 25, 1958.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 15, 1958.

Ratliff & Ratliff, by Dennis P. Ratliff, Haskell, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 30 days in jail and a fine of $150.

Highway Patrolman Jones testified that on the day in question he observed a truck tractor being driven over the center of the road and gave chase, that the truck weaved back and forth across the roadway, that he brought it to a halt and observed the appellant who was the driver. He stated that the appellant’s eyes were glazed, his face was very red and flushed, that he walked unsteadily, smelled of alcohol, and expressed the opinion that he was intoxicated.

*898The appellant did not testify or offer any evidence in his own behalf. We find the evidence sufficient to support the conviction and shall discuss the one contention advanced by appellant’s able counsel in their brief.

They contend that, even though Jones testified that the appellant was driving “on a public highway in Knox County, Texas,” and at other places in his testimony referred to the “road” upon which the appellant was driving, this did not constitute sufficient proof of the allegation in the information that the appellant drove upon “a public road.” Appellant alleges that it is necessary for the State to go further and prove that the road was “public for travel or traffic.” They recognize the holding of this Court in Anderson v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.App. 423, 195 S.W.2d 368, 369, but take issue with that portion of the opinion in that case which reads, “especially in view of the fact that no issue was made thereof in the trial court and the matter is for the first time urged in this Court.”

We have considered their argument and remain convinced of the soundness of the holding in Anderson.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant correctly contends that the absence of sufficient proof that he drove a motor vehicle on a public road in Knox County while intoxicated may be pointed out and relied upon in this Court, though not raised or made an issue in the trial court. If the opinion in Anderson v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.App. 423, 195 S.W.2d 368, implies or holds otherwise it is overruled.

We remain convinced that the testimony of Patrolman Jones set out in our original opinion is sufficient to sustain the allegation that appellant drove the motor vehicle upon a public road in Knox County.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
#### TRAVIS CREEK FUEL COMPANY, Appellant, v. Edna MAGGARD et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Sept. 21, 1956.

James Sampson, William A. Rice, Harlan, for appellant.

Roy W. House, Manchester, for appel-lees.

CLAY, Commissioner.

This workman’s compensation case presents the question of whether or not the employee’s death arose out of his employment. He was shot and killed by a third party while operating a truck on his employer’s business. The Board awarded compensation to his widow and this award was upheld by the circuit court.

The deceased, Dewey Maggard, was employed as a coal truck driver by appellant, Travis Creek Fuel Company. While cleaning out the fuel line of his truck he discovered sugar in the gas tank. He suspected one Heffner, a representative of the lessor of the mine from which coal was being hauled. Maggard reported the incident to his employer’s manager and at the manager’s request procured a warrant for Heffner’s arrest.

On the morning the charge against Heff-ner was to be heard, Maggard loaded his truck at the tipple where Heffner worked and started on his way to attend Heffner’s trial. Heffner got in his car and followed Maggard’s truck. A short time later Mag-gard was found dead as a result of a shotgun wound in the head.

*721There was abundant evidence to establish that Heffner killed Maggard. Clearly this unfortunate event occurred *in the course of*Maggard’s employment. It is appellant’s contention that the claimant failed to sustain the burden of proving that the death *arose out of*such employment. We think the governing principle in the cases of assaults by a fellow employee is applicable here. The rule is that if the assault is fairly traceable to an incident of the employment and is not the result of personal grievances unconnected therewith, compensation should be allowed. Kentucky Fluorspar Co. v. Wolford, 263 Ky. 471, 92 S.W.2d 753; and Henry Vogt Machine Co. v. Chamberlain, Ky., 279 S.W.2d 224, 229.

There was no showing that there was any prior personal animosity between Mag-gard and Heffner. The evidence establishes that Heffner bore ill will toward Maggard’s employer and a fair inference from the evidence is that this ill will was transferred to Maggard when he swore out the warrant. In prosecuting Heffner, Maggard was acting to protect his employer’s property and the charge against Heffner certainly arose out of an incident of Mag-gard’s employment. Through a consistent sequence of events, the death of Maggard is clearly traceable to, and likewise arose out of that employment.

The case is quite similar to that of Clark v. Industrial Commission, 356 Ill. 641, 191 N.E. 209, where an employee, a night garage attendant, had identified at the police station a person who had brought a stolen car to the garage. Subsequently the employee was shot by the accused person to prevent him from giving testimony before the grand jury. An award of compensation was upheld.

We are of the opinion there was substantial evidence in this case to support the Board’s finding that the employee’s death arose out of his employment.

The judgment is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 28 (Friday, February 9, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 9164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02651]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Advancing Translational 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Understudied Proteins Associated 
with Rare Diseases (R03) Review.
    Date: May 30, 2024.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 
National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, 
MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Ming Yan, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, 
National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National 
Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, MSC 4874, Bethesda, 
MD 20892, (301) 827-4312, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#197470777e3760787759777071377e766f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8be6e2e5eca5f2eae5cbe5e2e3a5ece4fd">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, 
Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, 
B--Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research 
Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 5, 2024.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-02651 Filed 2-8-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### J. J. MORREALE, Petitioner, v. Sam COHEN et ux., Respondents.

No. A-6665.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Feb. 26, 1958.

Rehearing Denied March 26, 1958.

Phipps & Smith, Galveston, for petitioner.

Levy & Levy, Galveston, Jerry M. Hamo-vit, Houston, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Upon evidence which in all material respects is closely analogous to that shown by the record in the present case, it was held in Welch v. Ada Oil Co., Tex.Civ.App., 302 S.W.2d 175 (wr. ref. n.r.e.) that the trial court properly refused to submit issues of discovered peril. We approve that holding and do not agree with the contrary conclusion reached by the Court of Civil Appeals in the present case. 308 S.W.2d 63. It appears, however, that respondents’ points attacking the verdict as against the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence were also sustained. Since the latter ruling is not subject to review here and the case must be retried in any event, the application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error. We can express no opinion, of course, as to whether the discovered peril issues will be raised by the evidence on the second trial.
Exhibit 32







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 Lion Capital Holdings, Inc. a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Tim Page, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





/s/Tim Page

Tim Page

Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer

Date: May 27, 2004
EXHIBIT 32.1



                                Certification of
                            American River Bankshares
            pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
   regarding Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005


         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each
of the undersigned officers of American River Bankshares, a California
corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify that:

         1.       The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
                  ended June 30, 2005 (the "Form 10-Q") fully complies with the
                  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
                  Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         2.       Information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
                  material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.



         Dated:  August 9, 2005        By: /s/ DAVID T. TABER
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           David T. Taber
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer

         Dated: August 9, 2005         By: /s/ MITCHELL A. DERENZO
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Mitchell A. Derenzo
                                           Executive Vice President and
                                           Chief Financial Officer




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

                                       40
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

November 1, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00732

- CR

Eric Nathaniel REEL

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Tex as,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR11077

Honorable Ray Olivarri, Judge Presiding



### ORDE R

On October 27, 2019 , appellant ’ s appointed trial counsel, Lynette Boggs

- Perez

, filed a

motion in this court requesting to withdraw as appellate counsel. After consideration, we

GRANT counsel ’ s motion. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 6.5. Because appellant is indigent , new

appellate counsel must be appointed.

Accordingly, we ORDER this appeal ABATED and REMANDED to the trial court for

appointment of new appellate counsel by November 18, 2019. See Duncan v. State , 653 S.W.2d

38, 40 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (holding th at appellate courts may abate appeals so that trial court

can assure appellant has effective assistance of counsel). We further ORDER the trial court

clerk to file a supplemental clerk ’ s record co ntaining the trial court ’ s order appointing new

appellate c ounsel in this court by December 2, 2019.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 1st day of November, 2019

.

___________________________________ LUZ ESTRADA

, Chief Deputy Clerk
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without **

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

jlf/Inventory

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PATRICIA JEANETH AREVALOCONTRERAS,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-71545

Agency No. A000-113-594

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 17, 2009 ** 

Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, AND TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Patricia Jeaneth Arevalo-Contreras, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision affirming the

FILED

NOV 30 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
jlf/Inventory 2 08-71545

immigration judge's denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal,

and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, SantosLemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for

review.

The record does not compel reversal of the IJ's conclusion that petitioner

failed to establish that the harm she suffered at the hands of gang members in El

Salvador was on account of a protected ground. See Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 563

F.3d 855, 858-62 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that resistance to gang activity is not

a particular social group for the purpose of establishing nexus to a protected

ground); Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2001) (personal

retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground). Accordingly,

petitioner's asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims fail.

Contrary to petitioner's allegation, the BIA did not issue a streamlined

decision, and the BIA's decision did not constitute a due process violation. See

Falcon-Cariche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir. 2003). In addition,

petitioner requests voluntary departure for the first time in this petition for review,
jlf/Inventory 3 08-71545

 but this court lacks authority to provide such relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(a)(1); 8

C.F.R. § 1240.26.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.