alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.6

AMENDMENT TO ASSIGNMNENT OF DEPOSIT ACCOUNT

This Amendment To Assignment of Deposit Account (this "Amendment") is made as of July 23, 2002 by and between Maxim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("Pledgor") and Silicon Valley Bank ("Lender").

RECITALS

A.    Dale
A. Sander and Denise M. Sander (individually and severally, "Borrower") has obtained credit from Bank in the original principal amount of $150,000.00 ("Loan"). The
Loan has been increased to $180,000.00 pursuant to a Change and Terms Agreement dated July 23, 2002. As security for repayment of the Loan and for all indebtedness owing by Borrower to Lender,
Pledgor has granted to Lender a security interest in the Certificate of Deposit Account Number XXXXXX3215, pursuant to the Assignment of Deposit Account agreement dated April 11, 2001 (the
"Pledge Agreement").

B.    Grantor
and Lender desire to modify the Pledge Agreement, in accordance with the terms of this Amendment.

NOW
THEREFORE, Borrower and Lender agree as follows:

1.    The
term Collateral is hereby amended in part to mean Certificate of Deposit Account Number XXXXXX3215 issued by Lender in an amount not less than $1,800,000.00 with
respect to Borrower's Loan in the principal amount of $180,000.00.

2.    Unless
otherwise defined, all capitalized terms in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned in the Pledge Agreement. Except as amended, the Pledge Agreement
remains in full force and effect.

3.    This
Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one instrument.

4.    This
Amendment amends certain terms of the Pledge Agreement. Except as amended hereby, the Pledge Agreement remains in full force and effect. This Amendment, together
with the Pledge Agreement and any documents executed in connection with the Pledge Agreement, constitute the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersede
all prior agreements and negotiations.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the first date above written.

|Pledgor:                    |  | Lender:              
|--------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|MAXIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. |  | SILICON VALLEY BANK  
|By:                         |  | /s/LARRY G. STAMBAUGH
|Name:                       |  | Larry G. Stambaugh   
|Title:                      |  | President and CEO    

---

QuickLinks
#### PAHL v. X. R. GILL, INC.

No. 3415.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

Oct. 1, 1936.

Romick & Allison and C. F. Cusack, all of Dallas, for appellant.

Pinkney Grissom and Thompson, Knight, Baker & Harris, all of Dalla§, for appel-lee.

HIGGINS, Justice.

This is a suit by appellant against ap-pellee to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in a collision between an automobile driven by plaintiff and a Studebaker car driven by H. B. Colwell. Plaintiff alleged the collision occurred in the city of Dallas on July 14, 1934, about 1: 45 p. m. Various acts of negligence on Colwell’s part were alleged, and that at the time in question he was in the employ of appellee as its service manager and acting in the course of his employment.

Upon the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence, the defendant moved for an instructed verdict, which was granted.

To show Colwell was an employee of appellee and acting in the course of his employment, appellant introduced excerpts from the deposition of Colwell. Such tes--timony shows Colwell was service manager of appellee in charge of servicing new and used cars. He owned the Studebak-ér car and was driving same at the time of the accident. The Trinity Battery Company at times did battery work for ap-pellee. Upon the occasion in question he left appellee’s place of business and was on his way to said battery company. Appellant cites injury cases where it was held that proof of ownership by defendants of automobiles owned by them and driven by their employees raises the pre-* sumption that such employees so operating said cars were at the time acting in the course of their employment so as to cast upon defendants the burden of going forward with the evidence and rebutting the presumption so raised. Studebaker Bros. Co. v. Kitts (Tex.Civ.App.) 152 S.W. 464; Texas News Co. v. Lake (Tex.Civ.App.) 58 S.W.(2d) 1044; Harper v. Highway Motor Freight Lines (Tex.Civ.App.) 89 S.W.(2d) 448.

*253Those authorities are not presently in point, for in the instant case the car driven by Colwell was owned by him and not by his employer. Furthermore, it appears Colwell was appellant’s witness and no reason appears why she could not have shown by him whether, at the time, he was acting in the course of his employment. The evidence in this case simply shows that at the time of the collision Colwell was an employee and at the time was on his way in his own car to a battery company which some times did work for his employer. Whether he was on or off duty the record does not disclose. The evidence is insufficient to show that 'at the time of the collision Colwell was acting in the course of his employment. At best it raises but a surmise to that effect.

The court properly instructed a verdict for the defendant.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           UT
<LEGEND>
     THIS STATEMENT CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CASH FLOW, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000077231
<NAME>                        PENNSYLVANIA ENTERPRISES INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR  
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                   PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      280,950,000
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    28,652,000
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         75,701,000
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       40,899,000
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 426,202,000
<COMMON>                                       52,040,000
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      35,523,000
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            44,763,000
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 132,326,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          240,000
<PREFERRED>                                    4,831,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           98,000,000
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             6,200,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                      0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  81,348,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                      0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                               0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 103,257,000
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  426,202,000
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      207,332,000
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           3,947,000
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     185,186,000
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     189,133,000
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        18,199,000
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             1,661,000
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 19,860,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       11,159,000
<NET-INCOME>                                   8,701,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    1,191,000
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  7,510,000
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       12,020,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      4,837,000
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         15,945,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .65
        



</TABLE>
NO. 07-06-0256-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	JANUARY 30, 2007

	______________________________

	TRUMAN CHUMLEY AND MARY ANN CHUMLEY, APPELLANTS

	V.

	LA SALLE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ET AL, APPELLEES

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 72ND DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

	NO. 2005-531,550; HONORABLE RUBEN REYES, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Appellants Truman Chumley and Mary Ann Chumley perfected this appeal to challenge the trial court’s final summary judgment in their suit against La Salle Bank, National Association, et al., to set aside a foreclosure and for rescission of substitute trustee’s deed.  The clerk’s record and a supplemental clerk’s record were both filed on October 30, 2006.  This Court granted an extension of time to the Chumleys in which to file their brief to December 27, 2006.  Neither the brief nor a further motion for extension of time were filed, prompting this Court to notify the Chumleys’ counsel, Keith C. Thompson, of the defect by letter dated January 11, 2007.  Counsel was also directed to file by January 22, 2007, either the brief or a response reasonably explaining the failure to do so with a showing that La Salle Bank, National Association, et al., have not been significantly injured by the delay.  The Court noted that failure to do so would subject the appeal to dismissal.  Counsel did not respond and the brief remains outstanding.

	Consequently, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution and failure to comply with a notice from the Clerk of this Court requiring a response or other action in a specified time.  See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b) and (c).

							Patrick A. Pirtle

							      Justice
Report of Independent Accountants

To the Shareholders of Level 8 Systems, Inc.

In our opinion, the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31,
1998 and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in
shareholders' equity and cash flows present fairly, in all material respects,
the financial position of Level 8 Systems, Inc. (the "Company") and its
subsidiaries at December 31, 1998 and the results of their operations and their
cash flows for the year then ended, in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles. These financial statements are the responsibility of the
Company's management; our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit of these
statements in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards which
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about
whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit
includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and
disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles
used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall
financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a
reasonable basis for the opinion expressed above. The financial statements of
the Company as of December 31, 1997 and for the year then ended and for the year
ended December 31, 1996 were each audited by other independent accountants whose
reports, dated February 23, 1998 and January 31, 1997, respectively, expressed
unqualified opinions on these statements.

As explained in Note 14, the Company has entered into certain agreements with
its primary shareholder, Liraz Systems, Ltd.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Washington, D.C.
March 31, 1999
### ESTIMATIONS OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND EFFECTS

IN SUPPORT OF

U.S. EPA SUSTAINABLE FUTURES INITIATIVE
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 11.1

              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               THREE MONTHS ENDED      NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                  SEPTEMBER 30,           SEPTEMBER 30,
                                               ------------------      -----------------
                                                 1996       1997        1996       1997
                                               -------      -----      -----      ------
                                                            (In thousands)
<S>                                              <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>  
Average shares outstanding                       5,000      5,000      5,000      5,000

Assumed conversion of convertible preferred
    shares issued on December 6, 1996            1,700      1,700      1,700      1,700

Assumed conversion of convertible preferred
    shares issued on August 21, 1997               714        714        714        714

Common shares issued on August 21, 1997            328        328        328        328
                                                 -----      -----      -----      -----

Total                                            7,742      7,742      7,742      7,742

</TABLE>
# CI2022281EN.01000601.xml

| 22.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 281/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 281/6

---

Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria apply

(2022/C 281 I/04)

The attention of data subjects is drawn to the following information in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1).

The legal basis for this processing operation are Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP (2), as implemented by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/1277 (3), and Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (4), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1275 (5).

The controller of this processing operation is the Council of the European Union represented by the Directorate-General for External Relations of the General Secretariat of the Council (GSC), that can be contacted at:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1 |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The purpose of the processing operation is the establishment and updating of the list of persons subject to restrictive measures in accordance with Decision 2013/255/CFSP, as implemented by Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/1277, and Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, as implemented by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1275.

The data subjects are the natural persons who fulfil the listing criteria as laid down in Decision 2013/255/CFSP and Regulation (EU) No 36/2012.

The personal data collected includes data necessary for the correct identification of the person concerned, the statement of reasons and any other data related thereto.

The personal data collected may be shared as necessary with the European External Action Service and the Commission.

Without prejudice to restrictions pursuant to Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, the exercise of the rights of the data subjects such as the right of access, as well as the rights to rectification or to object will be answered in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

Personal data will be retained for 5 years from the moment the data subject has been removed from the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures or the validity of the measure has expired, or for the duration of court proceedings in the event they had been started.

Without prejudice to any judicial, administrative or non-judicial remedy, data subjects may lodge a complaint with the European Data Protection Supervisor in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

---

(1)  OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39.

(2)  OJ L 147, 1.6.2013, p. 14.

(3)  OJ L 194, 21.7.2022, p. 15.

(4)  OJ L 16, 19.1.2012, p. 1.

(5)  OJ L 194, 21.7.2022, p. 8.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6173

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

DASHAWN RAQUAN HUNT, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Statesville. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (5:14-cr-00067-KDB-DCK-1; 5:17-cv00040-KDB) 

Submitted: April 14, 2020 Decided: April 17, 2020

Before WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Dashawn Raquan Hunt, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Dashawn Raquan Hunt seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2018). When the district court denies relief 

on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists 

would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. 

See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hunt has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Career Development for Early Career Investigators Study Section, October 08, 2024, 09:30 a.m. to October 09, 2024, 06:00 p.m., National Institute on Aging, 8th Floor, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on August 19, 2024, 89 FR 67097.                

Dates changes from 10/8-9/2024 to 10/24-25/2024 due to Dr. Dieguez having conflict of interest with the Society of Neuroscience conference and the ad hoc reviewers are attending the meeting. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: September 15, 2024.

Miguelina Perez, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-21414 Filed 9-18-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### GREAT AMERICAN INDEMNITY CO. v. RUSSELL et al.

No. 2874.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

Sept. 21, 1933.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 12, 1933.

Collins, Jackson & Snodgrass, of San Angelo and W. C. Jackson, of Port Stockton, for appellant.

White & Yarborough, of Dallas, and Hart Johnson, of Port Stockton, for appellees.

PELPHREY, Chief Justice.

This suit is one for workmen’s compensation, and resulted in a judgment in favor of appellee for compensation for 401 weeks at $9.69 per week.

The three questions presented on this appeal relate to the instructions given by the trial court.

The portions of the charge objected to read:

(1) “You are instructed that while you are deliberating upon your answers to the special issues submitted to you, you will not mention nor refer to, nor take into consideration, any matter, fact or circumstances, other than the evidence that has been introduced upon the trial of this cause, all of which I particularly instruct you to observe and obey.”

(2) “Special Issue No. 6. Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence 'that said total incapacity, if any, sustained by plaintiff, E. W. Russell, on or about the 20th day of June, 1932, will be permanent? ”

And (3) “This case is submitted to you upon special issues which you will answer from a preponderance of the evidence, that is, the greater weight and degree of credible testimony before you without regard to the effect your answers will have on the judgment in this case.”

The objection urged to the second portion was that it was on the weight of the evidence, and, as worded, led the jury to believe that the court was of the opinion that the incapacity inquired about in fact existed at the time of the submission of the issue.

The objection is, we think, well fpun'ded. The injury occurred about June 20, 1932; the cause was tried in January, 1933; and thex-e is a sharp conflict as to the extent and duration of the injury to appellee.

Under these circumstances, it was clearly error for the court to submit an issue which assumed that the total incapacity existed at the time of trial. It appears that the only thing inquired about in the issue was the condition of appellee after, the date of trial. *403thereby necessarily assuming that total incapacity existed at that time.

Appellee, among other cases, cites us to Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v. Walls (Tex. Civ. App.) 56 S.W.(2d) 244, as authority for the correctness of such an issue.

The decision in that ease did not depend upon the correctness of the issue attacked; the judgment having been reversed on other grounds. Under the facts here, we have concluded that the submission of the issue in the form complained of calls for a reversal of the judgment.

The remaining objections are without merit, and are overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded.