alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.62


AMENDMENT

TO

ACTINIUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. WARRANT TO PURCHASE COMMON STOCK


Pursuant
to Section 9(a) of the Warrant to Purchase Common Stock of (the “Warrant”) of Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(the “Company”), dated January 31, 2012, issued to Amrosan LLC in the amount of 99,617 warrant shares, the
Board of Directors of the Company has duly adopted a resolution approving this Amendment to the Warrant to extend the term of
the Warrant to February 11, 2022 as follows:


1.      
Section 1 of the Warrant is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:


“Term
of Warrant. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, this Warrant shall be exercisable, in whole or in part,
during the term commencing (“Issuance Date”) January 31, 2012 (the “Warrant Issue Date”),
and ending at 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time on February 11, 2022 and shall be void thereafter.”


2.      
All other terms and provisions of the Warrant shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect as written.


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment to the Warrant is made effective this 14th day of March, 2017.


 


	 	ACTINIUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Kaushik J. Dave
	 	Name:	Kaushik J. Dave
	 	Title:	Chief Executive officer
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.20



                                August __, 1999



John T. Forbis, President
Kroy Building Products
P.O. Box 636
York, NE  68467


                    Re:  Incentive arrangements

Dear Mr. Forbis,

     This letter expresses our arrangement as follows:

    1.  Kroy Building Products, Inc. (the "Company") shall pay you a lump sum
cash bonus (less required withholdings) of $1,000,000 (the "Bonus") if you are
still employed as President and CEO of the Company (or at a higher position with
Nortek or any affiliated company) on the fourth anniversary of the date hereof.
The Bonus would also be paid to you immediately in the event you are terminated
as President of the Company (or such higher position) prior to that time, other
than for cause, or if you resign for good reason.  If you are terminated for
cause, or resign other than for good reason, prior to the fourth anniversary
hereof, the Bonus would not be paid.  As used herein, "cause" means (i) your
engaging in embezzlement, theft, or fraud or (ii) your conviction or pleading
guilty or nolo contendere to any felony.  As used herein, "good reason" means
(i) any assignment by the Company or Nortek to you of any material duties
inconsistent with your position or (ii) any material limitation placed by the
Company or Nortek on the normal powers associated with your position.

     2. You shall be recommended by Nortek management for a Nortek stock option
grant of 15,000 shares.  These shares shall vest at the rate of 5,000 shares per
year, commencing on the first anniversary of the date hereof.

     Please sign below to indicate your agreement.

                                     Very truly yours,


                                     KROY BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC.


                                     By:_______________________________
                                     Its:

Accepted and agreed.


_________________________
John T. Forbis
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk February 7, 2011

p0131 

# Order

February 7, 2011

141817 & (57)

AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 141817 COA: 287153 Oakland CC: 2007-088192-NF MICHIGAN CATASTROPHIC CLAIMS ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for miscellaneous relief is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the June 15, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we ar e not persuaded that the question presented
should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Ex parte James Ennis FORTE.

No. 28811.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 18, 1956.

L. Clayton Rivers, Dallas, for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

Relator, an inmate of the Dallas County jail, seeks his release by writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he has served his term.

It appears that the relator was on December 13, 1956, sentenced to serve seven months in the penitentiary in Cause No. 9713 JI in the Criminal District Court No. 2 of Dallas County and the sentence was credited with back time in jail so as to begin on May 5, 1956.

It appears from the sentence as well as a certificate of the sheriff on file herein that relator has served such term.

Relator is ordered discharged.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FILM ROMAN, INC., AS OF AND FOR
THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                       JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                         DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                11,287,386
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          1,089,218
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                           20,903,771
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               0
<PP&E>                                                 2,538,202
<DEPRECIATION>                                         1,559,112
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        34,748,670
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          0
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                  85,223
<OTHER-SE>                                            36,305,684
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          34,748,670
<SALES>                                               32,945,502
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      32,945,502
<CGS>                                                 32,670,121
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         32,670,121
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       7,714,450
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       707,146
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (6,731,923)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             144,644
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (6,876,567)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (6,876,567)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              (0.81)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              (0.81)
        

</TABLE>
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2014-0570

 Directorate Identifier: 2013NM094AD

TR AWL 110 --- 8/31/07

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
Cite as 2016 Ark. 316



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

Opinion Delivered September 15, 2016 IN RE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT BOARD OF CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER EXAMINERS

PER CURIAM

Honorable Brad L. Karren of Bentonville, Circuit Judge, 19 th West Judicial Circuit,

is appointed to the Arkansas Supreme Court Board of Certified Court Reporter Examiners for a three-year term expiring on September 15, 2019. The court thanks him for his willingness to serve on this important board

. The court expresses its gratitude to outgoing member Judge Richard N. Moore of Little Rock, whose term has expired, for his years of valuable service to this board.
|   | 1. | Silipos,      Inc., a Delaware corporation. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Twincraft,      Inc., a Vermont corporation. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------|

|   | 3. | Langer      Distribution Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation (formerly known as      GoodFoot Acquisition Co.) – currentlyinactive. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 4. | Langer      Professional Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation – currently      inactive. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned, Bondy Tan, President and Chief Executive Officer of Global Innovative Systems Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
| (1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Global Innovative Systems Inc. for the period ended June 30, 2006 (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 Global Innovative Systems Inc. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Dated:  August 21, 2006

/s/ Bondy Tan

Bondy Tan

President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Global Innovative Systems Inc. and will be retained by Global Innovative Systems Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1 

### Werner, Christopher Subject: Interagency call with OMB and DOJ on Regional Haze Rule Revisions Location: RTP-OAQPS-C535I/RTP-OAQPS-BLDG-C
Start: Fri 2/19/2016 12:30 PM End: Fri 2/19/2016 1:30 PM
Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: Werner, Christopher Required Attendees: Werner, Christopher; Jones, Rhea; Lorang, Phil; Bea ver, Melinda; Marks, Matthew; Anderson, Lea; VanLare, Paula; Greenglass, Nora; aa ron_l_szabo@omb.eop.gov; Wood, Anna; Smith, Kristi Optional Attendees: Balserak, Paul Resources: RTP-OAQPS-C535I/RTP-OAQPS-BLDG-C Categories: Regional Haze
The State of TexasAppellee

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 17, 2014

No. 04-12-00379-CR

Stephen RICHARDSON,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010CR10629

Honorable Ray Olivarri, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

On October 16, 2013, this court issued an opinion affirming the trial court’s judgment. 

On February 4, 2014, the Court of Criminal Appeals informed this court that although it had 

granted appellant an extension of time to file a petition for discretionary review until January 14, 

2014, the time had expired. Our mandate issued on February 5, 2014. On March 10, 2014, 

appellant filed a pro se “Unsworn Declaration by Offender,” which we construe as a motion for 

rehearing because he asks this court to overturn his case and/or offer another fair plea bargain.

A motion for rehearing must be filed within fifteen days after the court of appeals renders 

its judgment. TEX. R. APP. P. 49.1. Because appellant’s motion is not timely, we DENY the 

motion.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 17th day of March, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 99.1

                           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 Annual Report of NVE Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003 (the "Report"), I,
Daniel A. Baker, 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; 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/ Daniel A. Baker
-------------------
Daniel A. Baker
President and Chief Executive Officer

May 16, 2003


(A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to NVE Corporation and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.)
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-16-00213-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF J.P.M., JR., W.R.M., AND A.M.M., CHILDREN 

 

On Appeal from the 364th District Court 

Lubbock County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2011-500,199, Honorable William R. Eichman II, Presiding 

 

August 11, 2016 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Appellant, J.P.M., father of J.P.M., Jr., W.R.M., and A.M.M., attempts to appeal 

six interlocutory orders issued in a suit for modification of a child support order. As the 

orders are not final, appealable orders, we dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

On February 22, 2016, the Office of the Attorney General filed suit to modify a 

2012 child support order concerning J.P.M., Jr., W.R.M., and A.M.M. Appellant, an 

inmate, answered the suit pro se and moved for appointment of counsel, for discovery 

from the Internal Revenue Service and Social Security Administration free of cost, and 

to appear at all hearings in person or by telephone. The motions were denied on April 

18, 2016. Appellant subsequently filed a motion for rehearing concerning his requests
2

for discovery at no cost and to appear at hearings in person by bench warrant or by 

telephone. He also moved for findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the 

trial court’s rulings. The motions were denied on May 17, 2016, and appellant filed this

appeal.

Questioning whether we had jurisdiction over the appeal, we notified appellant by 

letter that it did not appear that a final, appealable order or judgment had been entered

in this case. We directed appellant to show grounds for continuing the appeal by 

August 1, 2016, or we would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3(a). Appellant has yet to respond to the court’s letter.

Generally, appellate courts have jurisdiction over final judgments only. See 

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). A judgment is final for 

purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims. Id. We have 

jurisdiction to consider immediate appeals of interlocutory orders only if a statute 

explicitly provides appellate jurisdiction. Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352–53 

(Tex. 1998).

Because the orders from which appellant attempts to appeal do not finally 

dispose of all parties or claims, they are interlocutory. Finding no statutory authority 

allowing immediate appeal, we lack jurisdiction to review and must dismiss the appeal.

We therefore dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction and for appellant’s failure 

to comply with an order of this court. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c).

Per Curiam
NO. 07-11-00043-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

JANUARY 5, 2012

RONE NUNEZ AKA RONI NUNEZ, APPELLANT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

FROM THE 26TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY;

NO. 09-1150-K26; HONORABLE BILLY RAY STUBBLEFIELD, JUDGE

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Rone Nunez, was convicted of capital murder1in a trial before the 

court after the State had waived the death penalty. He was sentenced to life 

imprisonment without parole. We affirm.

Appellant=s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his 

motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in 

 

1 See TEXAS PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.31(a)(2), 19.03 (West 2011).
2

his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be 

predicated. Id. at 744-45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 

(Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling 

authorities, there is no error in the trial court=s judgment. Additionally, counsel has 

certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to 

withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this 

matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The court has 

also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant did not file a 

response. By his Anders brief, counsel reviewed all grounds that could possibly support 

an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and 

made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any 

arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 

109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 

(Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with 

counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

Accordingly, counsel=s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court=s 

judgment is affirmed.2

Mackey K. Hancock

 Justice

Do not publish. 

 

2 Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client 

a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant=s right to file a 

pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.
EXHIBIT 31.1 

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE**

**SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, JeffreyD. Hoyal, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that: 

 

1. I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Raybor Management Inc.; 

 

2.Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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, notmisleading with respect the period covered by this quarterly report; 

 

3. Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this quarterly report; 

 

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

 

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused suchdisclosure 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 duringthe period in which this quarterly 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 coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c) disclosed inthis 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

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

 

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 controlsover financial reporting. 

 

Date: May 10, 2004
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 28, 2011 

y1219 

Order 

 

December 28, 2011 

143218 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143218 

 COA: 303026 

JONATHON A. CLARK, Wayne CC: 06-001737-01-FC 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 16, 2011 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion 

for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).