alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.4

As of March 31, 2008

StockerYale, Inc.

32
Hampshire Road

Salem, New Hampshire 03079

Attention:        Chief Financial Officer



| | Re: | Amendment to Common Stock Purchase Warrant No. 2003-1
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------

(Issue Date: June 10, 2004)

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Reference is made to (a) that certain Common Stock Purchase Warrant No. 2003-1 issued by StockerYale, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation (the Company) on June 10, 2004 in favor of
PSource Structured Debt Limited (as partial assignee of Laurus Master Fund, Ltd.) (the Holder), providing for the purchase of up to an aggregate amount of 400,000 shares of Common Stock of the Company (the
Warrant) and (b) that certain lockup agreement dated as of the date hereof, made by the Holder in favor of the Company with respect to the Securities defined therein. Capitalized terms used herein that are not defined shall
have the meanings given to them in the Warrant.

In consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree that Expiration Date (as defined in the Warrant) is hereby amended such that Expiration Date shall hereafter mean June 10, 2016.

This letter agreement shall become effective upon receipt by the Holder of a copy of this letter agreement executed by the Company.

Except as specifically amended herein, the Warrant shall remain in full force and effect, and are hereby ratified and confirmed. The
execution, delivery and effectiveness of this letter agreement shall not operate as a waiver of any right, power or remedy of the Holder, nor constitute a waiver of any provision of the Warrant. This letter agreement shall be binding upon and inure
to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns and shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York.

[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]



---

This letter agreement may be executed by the parties hereto in one or more counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed an original and all of which when taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement. Any signature delivered by a party by facsimile transmission shall be deemed to be an original signature hereto.



Very truly yours,PSOURCE STRUCTURED DEBT LIMITEDBy:

Laurus Capital Management, LLC, its investment
managerBy:

/s/ Scott BluesteinName:

Scott BluesteinTitle:

Authorized Signatory




|                         |  |                                      
|------------------------ |  | -------------------------------------
|CONSENTED AND AGREED TO:
|                        
|STOCKERYALE, INC.       
|                         | 
|By:                      |  | /s/ Mark W. Blodgett                 
|Name:                    |  | Mark W. Blodgett                     
|Title:                   |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

AMENDMENT TO WARRANT NO. 2003-1

(ISSUE DATE: JUNE 10, 2004)
Order filed July 9, 2019.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00329

- CV

____________ DARYL BARNES , Appellant

V. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, ET AL, Appellee s

On Appeal from the 164th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2016

- 14432



### ABATEMENT ORDER
On June 13, 2019, we notified the parties that according to the clerk’s record, the judgment or order being appealed is not a final, appealable ju dgment. Specifically, it appears the claims again Ron Hickman remain pending in the trial

court. On June 24, 2019, appellees responded by letter asserting we have jurisdiction over this appeal because Hickman was never served with process.A certificate o f service is prima facie evidence of service. Tex. R. Civ. P. 21a.

Rule 21a creates a presumption that a document properly sent is received by the
addressee. Thomas v. Ray , 889 S.W.2d 237, 238 (Tex. 1994). This presumption may be rebutted by an offer of pr oof of nonreceipt. Id . In the absence of any proof to the contrary, the presumption has the force of a rule of law. Id.
Appellant attached a certificate of service to his petition. Appellees do not
assert it is defective nor do they refer this court to any thing in our record that rebuts the presumption Hickman was properly served.
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 27.2 provides:
The appellate court may allow an appealed order that is not final to be modified so as to be made final and may allow the modifie d order and all proceedings relating to it to be included in a supplemental record. Tex. R. App. P. 27.2. See also Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 206 (Tex. 2001). Our record does not reflect the appealed order is final as the claims against Hickman were not included in the dismissal order.

We therefore order the case abated and remanded to the trial court for a period of thirty days

. A supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s order(s) , if

necessary, or any records establishing there are no claims pending against Hickman
, shall be filed with the clerk of this court on or before August 9, 2019

. The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s active docket. The appeal will be re instated on this court ’ s active docket when the supplemental clerk’s record is filed in this court. The court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion. I t is the responsibility of any party seeking reinstatement to request a hearing date from the trial court and to schedule a hearing,if a hearing is required, in compliance with this court ’ s order. If the parties do not

request a hearing, the court coordin ator of the trial court shall set a hearing date , if a hearing is required, and notify the parties of such date.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Hassan and Poissant.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ramon Espinar, Also Known as Ramon Jose Espanar, Also Known as Ramon Espinal, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the People’s motion for consolidation of two indictments. The offenses charged in each indictment arose out of the same criminal transaction as that term is defined in CPL 40.10 (2), and defendant failed to demonstrate good cause for separate trials of the offenses charged in each indictment *(see,*CPL 200.20 [5]; *People v Lane, 56*NY2d 1). There was no substantial difference in the quantum of proof on each indictment and no contention by defendant that he had important testimony to offer on the charges on one indictment but had a genuine need to refrain from testifying regarding the charges in the other indictment *(see, People v McDougald,*155 AD2d 867, *lv denied 75*NY2d 870). Finally, the proof was not so detailed or complex that there was a likelihood that the jury would be unable to consider separately the evidence pertaining to each of the events *(see, People v Casiano,*138 AD2d 892, 894, *lv denied*72 NY2d 857).

The sentence imposed was lawful, and we perceive no reason to exercise our discretionary power of modification. *882(Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J. —criminal sale of controlled substance, third degree.) Present —Boomer, J. P., Green, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5560 

To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on certain sports footwear. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 8, 2012 

Mr. BLUMENAUER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on certain sports 

footwear. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN SPORTS FOOTWEAR. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5560 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Sports footwear with outer 

soles and uppers of rubber 

or plastics, other than such 

sports footwear for men or 

women, the foregoing valued at $6.50/pair or more 

but not over $10/pair, and 

with cleats, and having uppers of which over 90% of 

the external surface area 

(including any accessories 

or reinforcements) is rubber or plastics, (except 

footwear having foxing or a 

foxing-like band applied or 

molded at the sole and 

overlapping the upper and 

except footwear designed 

to be worn over, or in lieu 

of, other footwear as a protection against water, oil, 

grease or chemicals or cold 

or inclement weather (provided for in subheading 

6402.19.15) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
##### 



Exhibit 99.4  (PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPTERS LOGO)PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
350 S. Grand Ave.
Los Angeles CA 90071
Telephone (213) 236 3000
  Report of Independent Auditors  To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of GreenPoint Financial
Corporation:  We have examined managements assertion about GreenPoint Financial
Corporation and its subsidiaries, including GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.
(the Company) compliance with the minimum servicing standards identified in
the Mortgage Bankers Association of Americas Uniform Single Attestation
Program for Mortgage Bankers(USAP) as of and for the
year ended December 31, 2003 included in the accompanying management assertion (see Exhibit I).
Management is responsible for the Companys compliance with those minimum
servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
managements assertion about the Companys compliance based on our examination. Our examination was made in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Companys
compliance with the minimum servicing standards and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our
examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does
not provide a legal determination on the Companys compliance with the minimum
servicing standards. In our opinion, managements assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2003 is fairly stated, in all material respects.  -s- PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP  March 25, 2004




---



##### 



Exhibit I  Managements Assertion Regarding Compliance
With Minimum Servicing Standards  As of and for the year ended December 31,2003, GreenPoint Mortgage
Funding, Inc. (the Company), a wholly-owned subsidiary of GreenPoint
Financial Corporation, has complied in all material respects with the minimum
servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of Americas
Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers. As of and for this same period, GreenPoint Financial Corporation
maintained on behalf of the Company, errors and omissions and employee fidelity
bond insurance policies in the amount of $20,000,000 and $50,000,000,
respectively.  March 25, 2004 -s- Becky PoissonBecky Poisson
Executive Vice President of
Operations and Technology-s- Nathan HieterNathan Hieter
Controller-s- David PetriniDavid Petrini
Chief Financial Officer-s- S.A IbrahimS.A. Ibrahim
Chief Executive Officer
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       5
<MULTIPLIER>                    1

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               March-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    March-31-2000
<CASH>                          3,220
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                3,220
<PP&E>                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  3,220
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           149,286
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     72
<COMMON>                        3,445
<OTHER-SE>                      {149,583}
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    3,220
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                0
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COST>                    {197,073}
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 {190,073}
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0
<DISCOUNTED>                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    197,073
<EPS-BASIC>                     .06
<EPS-DILUATED>                  .06


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1

                   INTERSTAR SECURITISATION MANAGEMENT PTY LTD
                       OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

The undersigned  officer of Interstar  Securitisation  Management Pty Limited, a
company  organized  under  the  laws  of  Victoria,  Australia  ("ISM"),  hereby
certifies on behalf of ISM and on his own behalf for  purposes of the  Interstar
Millennium  Series  2002-1G Trust Class A2 Mortgage  Backed  Floating Rate Notes
(the "Notes"), as follows:

1. I am a duly appointed, qualified and acting Officer of ISM,

2. I am duly  authorized to execute and deliver this  Officer's  Certificate  on
   behalf of ISM; and

3. To the  best of my  knowledge,  the  Issuer  Trustee  has  complied  with all
   conditions and covenants under the Transaction  Documents,  for the Interstar
   Millennium Series 2002-1G issue of Notes for the period between July 17, 2002
   and the end of the Manager's fiscal year on June 30, 2003.  Capitalized terms
   used and not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in
   the Note Trust Deed related to the above-referenced issue of Notes.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed my name as of February 19, 2004.



/s/ Sam Kyriacou
------------------
Name:  Sam Kyriacou
Title: Director, Interstar Securitisation
       Management Pty
#### In the Matter of Jewish Child Care Association of New York, Petitioner, against Seymour Sanders et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County,

December 4, 1957.

*Helen L. Buttenwieser*and *Henry G. Wenzel*for petitioner.

*Albert M. Goldberg*for respondents.

Cortland A. Johnson, J.

By this application for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner, an institution authorized by law to receive children into their custody by commitment from the Department of Welfare, seeks to secure the redelivery to it of a four-year-old child duly committed to its custody and by it placed in the respondents’ home for boarding care. No written return has been made by respondents, and none of the material allegations of fact were controverted in the hearing held in this court; the parties are in disagreement only as to the proper course to be taken with due regard to the rights of all those involved.

Respondents received the child as a boarding child, agreeing that the child’s mother expected eventually to assume her care and nurture and was meanwhile to be afforded every opportunity of visitation and of developing the awareness and acceptance by the child of her mother’s identity. From the beginning it was understood by respondents that there was no ground for *403expecting or hoping that the mother might consent to an adoption. Respondents have, the court feels, become fond of the child to an extent which has resulted in an attempt by them to induce the mother to permit an adoption by them; she has resisted these efforts and the conflict has resulted in this proceeding. The petitioner believes (quite correctly in the court’s opinion) that it cannot suffer its established practice to be set at naught solely because respondents believe they can contribute more to the child’s welfare than petitioner and the mother can.

The court does not believe that the best interest of this child will be served by the condonation of a disregard of their own obligations and agreements by the respondents, however well-intentioned they may be. On the contrary, upon all the evidence before it, the court finds that the welfare of the child will be best served by her removal from the home before further damage is done or a still more difficult situation for her is created and accordingly it has no choice but to sustain the writ, which will be done.

Settle order on notice, fixing a date for the child’s delivery to the petitioner.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and

Huawei Technologies USA Inc.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-533-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

Please take notice that attorney Brian M. Koide of the law firm ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP, 

PLLC appears as counsel of record for Plaintiff Uniloc 2017. Mr. Koide hereby requests that all 

notices required to be given, and all papers required to be served in the above-entitled and 

numbered cause, be copied to and served upon him.

Dated: November 3, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Brian M. Koide

Brian M. Koide 

Virginia Bar No. 46,329

ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP, PLLC

2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120 / 324

Southlake, Texas 76092

Telephone: (703) 565-2852

Facsimile: (817) 887-5950 

brian@etheridgelaw.com

Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 31 Filed 11/03/20 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that the foregoing document was served upon all counsel of record via the 

Court's CM/ECF electronic filing system in accordance with the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure on November 3, 2020. 

/s/ Brian M. Koide

Brian M. Koide

Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 31 Filed 11/03/20 Page 2 of 2
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT JOHNSTON HAYWOOD, DOC #R46512, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-218 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed July 27, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b) (2) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Philip J. Federico, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. LaROSE, C.J., and BLACK and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
EXHIBIT 32.01

        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) OF THE
                        SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with  this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
September 30, 2006 of Deer Valley Corporation (the "Company"), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles
G.  Masters,  President  and  Chief  Executive  Officer  of the Company, certify
pursuant  to  Rule  13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge:

     1.   the Report  fully  complies  with  the  requirements  of Section 13(a)
          or  15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934, as amended; and

     2.   the information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material  respects,  the financial condition and results of operations
          of  the  Company.


 /s/Charles  G.  Masters
 ---------------------------
Charles  G.  Masters
President  and  Chief  Executive  Officer

Date: November 20, 2006


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

<PAGE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION

NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD 

and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS 

AMERICA, INC.

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00507-ADA

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM AND ADDRESS

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that effective March 1, 2023, attorneys Craig D. Cherry,Justin 

Allen, and Mark D. Siegmund have moved from Steckler Wayne Cherry & Love PLLC to the law 

firm of Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC.

All counsel are requested to send copies of future pleadings, orders, notices, and 

correspondence to Craig D. Cherry, Justin Allen, and Mark D. Siegmund at the law firm of Cherry

Johnson Siegmund James, PLLC. Mr. Cherry, Mr. Allen, and Mr. Siegmund’s contact information 

is provided below:

Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PLLC

400 Austin Ave., 9th Floor

Waco, Texas 76701

Telephone: (254) 732-2242

Facsimile: (866) 627-3509

Email: ccherry@cjsjlaw.com

Email: jallen@cjsjlaw.com

Email: msiegmund@cjsjlaw.com

Email: jharing@cjsjlaw.com

Email: bperry@cjsjlaw.com

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 69 Filed 03/03/23 Page 1 of 2
Respectfully submitted,

CHERRY JOHNSON SIEGMUND JAMES, PLLC

400 Austin Ave., 9th Floor

Waco, Texas 76701

Telephone: (254) 732-2242

Facsimile: (866) 627-3509

BY: /s/ Mark D. Siegmund

CRAIG D. CHERRY

State Bar No. 24012419

Email: ccherry@cjsjlaw.com

JUSTIN ALLEN

State Bar No. 24081977

Email: jallen@cjsjlaw.com

MARK D. SIEGMUND

State Bar No. 24117055

Email: msiegmund@cjsjlaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served or delivered electronically 

via U.S. District Court [LIVE] – Document Filing System, to all counsel of record, on this the 3rd

day of March 2023.

/s/ Mark D. Siegmund

MARK D. SIEGMUND

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 69 Filed 03/03/23 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

For the following periods the registrant had no securities that were dilutive
for the calculation of earnings per share.

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                                              Weighted average number of basic
      Summary from unaudited financial        Basic and diluted loss per       and diluted common stock shares
                 statements                          common share                        outstanding
   ---------------------------------------- -------------------------------- ------------------------------------
<S>                                         <C>                              <C>
   Six months ended 11/30/2001                                       (0.09)                           13,127,684
   Three months ended 11/30/2001                                     (0.06)                           13,154,538
   Six months ended 11/30/2000                                       (0.08)                           12,428,043
   Three months ended 11/30/2000
                                                                     (0.04)                           12,637,533
</Table>