alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
cbbt_ex105.htm

EXHIBIT 10.5
  
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE
  
 THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE (the “Amendment”), dated as of March 26, 2019 (the “Effective Date”), is entered into by Cerebain Biotech Corp. (the “Company”) and Auctus Fund, LLC (“Holder”). 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company issued to Holder a convertible promissory note in the original principal amount of $110,000 on February 15, 2018 (the “Promissory Note”); and
  
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Holder desire to amend the Promissory Note; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, it is hereby agreed by each party hereto as follows: 
  
 1. The Maturity Date of the Promissory Note is hereby extended from November 15, 2018 to September 26, 2019.
  
 2. Pursuant to Section 2.6 of the Note, the Company and Holder acknowledge that the principal balance of the Note is increased by $15,000.00 as of the Effective Date.
  
 3. Except as expressly amended and modified by this Amendment, the Promissory Note is and shall continue to be in full force and effect in accordance with the terms thereof. 
  
 4. This Amendment may be executed by the parties hereto in counterparts, and all of such counterparts taken together shall be deemed to constitute one and the same instrument. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this First Amendment to Promissory Note to duly executed as of the day and year first written above. 
  
  	 	Cerebain Biotech Corp.	
	 	  	 	 
		By:		
	  
	 Name:
	 Eric Clemons
	 
	 	Title:	 CEO
	 
	 	    	 	 
	  
	 Auctus Fund, LLC
	  

	  
	   
	  
	  

	  
	 By:
	  
	  

	  
	 Name:
	 Lou Posner 
	  

	  
	 Title:
	 Managing Director
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer of Proton Laboratories, Inc. pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Section 1350 of 18 U.S.C.
63.

I, Edward Alexander, the Chief Executive Officer of Proton Laboratories, Inc.
hereby certify that Proton Laboratories, Inc.'s periodic report on Form 10-QSB
and the financial statements contained therein 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 that information contained in the periodic report
on Form 10-QSB and the financial statements contained therein fairly represents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations
of Proton Laboratories, Inc.

Date:  November 18, 2005
/s/ Edward Alexander
Edward Alexander
Chief Executive Officer of
Proton Laboratories, Inc.

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to Proton
Laboratories, Inc. and will be retained by Proton Laboratories, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Louis F. *UTZ,*Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27548.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 13, 1955.

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

PER CURIAM.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 30 days in jail and a fine of $250.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review. The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2





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 Deep Down, Inc. (“Deep Down”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“the Report”), the undersigned, Eugene L. Butler, Chief Financial Officer of Deep Down, 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 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 Deep Down.





This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Report. A signed original of this statement has been provided to Deep Down and will be retained by Deep Down and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Date:       March 8, 2011


/s/EUGENE L. BUTLER


Eugene L. Butler


Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Financial Officer)
#### BLUE GRASS MINING COMPANY, Inc., Appellant, v. ELECTRIC & MACHINE SUPPLY COMPANY, Inc., Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 18, 1955.

Harry M. Caudill, Whitesburg, for appellant.

Emmett G. Fields and Stephen Combs, Jr., Whitesburg, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This action was brought to recover an amount claimed due on a contract for the sale of mining machinery. The defendant counterclaimed for the sum of $1,070 allegedly due and a judgment in this amount was entered for it.

On this appeal plaintiff contends the trial court improperly submitted the case to a jury since neither party had made a demand therefor under CR 38.02. However, we are of the opinion the parties consented to a jury trial as provided in CR 39.03.

Plaintiff also contends the trial court improperly refused to instruct the jury concerning the question of fraud raised in plaintiff’s reply. However, it is clear from the pleadings that the matter of fraud was only recited as a reason why the parties entered into a new contract alleged by the plaintiff. No cause of action for. fraud was stated and it was not in issue in the case. *792Plaintiff's offered instruction neither conformed to the pleadings nor the proof.

It is unnecessary for us to pass upon defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiff’s transcript of evidence.

The motion for appeal is overruled and the judgment stands affirmed.

HOGG, J., not sitting
|     |                                                                                                                            |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (i) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |

|      |                                                                                                                                                      |
|------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |
| Dated: | June 6, 2016 |   |
|   | By:  | /s/ EMANUEL CHIRICO  |
|   | Name: | Emanuel Chirico |
|   |   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE REGISTRANT'S ANNUAL FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-29-1996
<CASH>                                          78,680
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   66,165
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               282,392
<PP&E>                                       1,321,887
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,080,338)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,352,060
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          164,964
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,456,457
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,352,060
<SALES>                                        109,806
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               616,915
<CGS>                                          158,111
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,015,157
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (96,734)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (261,334)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (261,334)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (261,334)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 302(a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Steven Kass, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Tofutti Brands Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 15(e) and 15d- 15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) [Reserved]

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

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

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date:  January 20, 2006

/s/Steven Kass*
--------------
Steven Kass
Chief Financial Officer

* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON , D
.C
. 20460 

# JAN - 5 2011 O FFI CE O F AIR AN D RAD IATION Mr. Jeff Applekamp Director, Government Affairs Gas Processors Association 6526 E. 60th Street Tulsa, Oklahoma 74145 Dear Mr. Applekamp: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has received the Petition for Reconsideration ofthe final National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines you submitted on October 29,2010. This letter is to inform you that we intend to initiate a reconsideration process to address the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth issues raised in that petition. We are not taking action at this time on the first and seventh issues raised in the petition. We received a total of six petitions for reconsideration of the August 20,2010 final NESHAP for stationary RICE. We are granting reconsideration on the following issues raised in the petitions:
• continuous parametric monitoring system requirements; • emission standard for existing four-stroke lean burn spark ignition engines; • methodology for considering emissions variability and establishing the floor for the maximum achievable control technology; • use of co-benefits of non-hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions reductions when determining maximum achievable control technologies and generally available control technologies; • use oftotal hydrocarbons rather than formaldehyde as a surrogate for HAP emissions; and • allowance for emergency engines to operate up to 15 hours per year as part of an emergency demand response program. At this time, we are not taking action of the following issues raised in the petitions:
• provisions prohibiting use ofemergency engines for peak shaving operation; • EPA's decision not to distinguish between engines located in urban and rural areas in establishing emission standards; and • EPA's decision not to have separate standards that would apply during periods of shutdown and malfunction.

Inteme l Add ress (URL) • http ://www. epa . gov Recycled/Recyclab le. P rint ed wI th VElgetable 01 1Based Inks o n 1 00% POSlconsumer. P rocess C hlori ne F ree Recyc led Paper

### The reconsideration process will allow for public participation on the issues raised under reconsideration. A more detailed description ofthe particular issues to be reconsidered and specific information about the process to be followed will be set out in a forthcoming Federal Register notice. If you have any questions regarding the reconsideration process, please contact Melanie King ofmy staff at (919) 541-2469. We thank you for your continuing interest in this rule and look forward to hearing from you during the reconsideration process. Sincerely,

na McCarthy Assistant Administrator
*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 October 10, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50032 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JAMEL WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:05-CR-170-ALL

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jamel Washington pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced Washington to 262 months of imprisonment and eight years of supervised release

on the drug count. The district court sentenced Washington to 120 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release on the firearm count. The terms were to be served concurrently. Washington appeals, arguing that his sentence, imposed after the2

Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), was unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to meet the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The record shows that the district court fulfilled its duty to consider all of the § 3553 factors and sentenced Washington to 262 months of imprisonment, the lowest end of the sentencing guidelines range. See United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005) . This sentence is within the properly calculated advisory guidelines range and is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo , 435 F.3d 551, 554-55 (5th Cir. 2006). There is no indication that the sentence imposed was unreasonable. See Mares , 402 F.3d at 519. Washington argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is facially unconstitutional and unconstitutional as applied because the Government failed to establish the interstate commerce element. Washington concedes that his constitutional challenge is foreclosed by circuit precedent, and he raises it only to preserve it for review by the Supreme Court. See United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 318 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Guidry, 406 F.3d 314, 318-19 (5th Cir. ), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 190 (2005). Citing Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Washington argues that his sentence is unconstitutional because it was enhanced on the basis of his prior convictions, which were neither admitted by him nor submitted for proof to the jury. Washington3

concedes that this contention is foreclosed by circuit precedent, and he raises it only to preserve it for further review. See Shepard v. United States , 125 S. Ct. 1254, 1262-63 & n.5 (2005); United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2





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 Deep Down, Inc. (“Deep Down”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“the Report”), the undersigned, Gay Stanley Mayeux, Chief Financial Officer of Deep Down, 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 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 Deep Down.





This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Report. A signed original of this statement has been provided to Deep Down and will be retained by Deep Down and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Date:          November 19, 2010





/s/GAY STANLEY MAYEUX


Gay Stanley Mayeux


Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Financial Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1943 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1943

    To restore the application of the Federal antitrust laws to the 
   business of health insurance to protect competition and consumers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 2011

 Mr. DeFazio (for himself, Ms. Slaughter, and Mr. Gene Green of Texas) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To restore the application of the Federal antitrust laws to the 
   business of health insurance to protect competition and consumers.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Health Insurance Industry Fair 
Competition Act''.

SEC. 2. RESTORING THE APPLICATION OF ANTITRUST LAWS TO HEALTH SECTOR 
              INSURERS.

    (a) Amendment to McCarran-Ferguson Act.--Section 3 of the Act of 
March 9, 1945 (15 U.S.C. 1013), commonly known as the McCarran-Ferguson 
Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(c) Nothing contained in this Act shall modify, impair, or 
supersede the operation of any of the antitrust laws with respect to 
the business of health insurance. For purposes of the preceding 
sentence, the term `antitrust laws' has the meaning given it in 
subsection (a) of the first section of the Clayton Act, except that 
such term includes section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to the 
extent that such section 5 applies to unfair methods of competition.''.
    (b) Related Provision.--For purposes of section 5 of the Federal 
Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45) to the extent such section applies 
to unfair methods of competition, section 3(c) of the McCarran-Ferguson 
Act shall apply with respect to the business of health insurance 
without regard to whether such business is carried on for profit, 
notwithstanding the definition of ``Corporation'' contained in section 
4 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Alton C. FRANKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 26705.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 11, 1953.

Lawrence Arnim, Henry J. Lamb, Houston, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for unlawfully carrying a pistol; the punishment assessed is confinement in the county jail for one month.

Since perfecting his appeal, the appellant has filed a motion, duly verified, requesting the dismissal thereof.

The motion is granted and the appeal is therefore dismissed.
#### Ex parte Arlan KERR.

No. 27339.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 19, 1955.

No attorney on appeal.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

This is an extradition case.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception, without which nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.