alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.18F

                          FIRST AMENDMENT TO LOAN AGREEMENT


          This First Amendment to Loan Agreement is made as of December 30, 1997
between International Wireless Communications Holdings, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "BORROWER"), and Toronto Dominion Investments, Inc. ("TDI").

          The Borrower, TDI and certain other Lenders named therein are parties
to a Loan Agreement dated as of August 18, 1997 (the "LOAN AGREEMENT").  Each
capitalized term which is used and not otherwise defined in this First Amendment
has the meaning which the Loan Agreement assigns to that term.

          The Borrower has informed the Lenders that it anticipates being out of
compliance with the covenant set forth in Section 5.01(j) of the Loan Agreement
and has requested that the Lenders amend that covenant as set forth in this
First Amendment.  TDI (which, by itself, constitutes Requisite Lenders) has
agreed to make such amendment.

          Now, therefore, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

          1.   Section 5.01(j) of the Loan Agreement is hereby amended by
deleting the number "$2,000,000" and replacing such number with the number
"$1,500,000".

          2.   Except as amended by Section 1 above, the Loan Agreement remains
in full force and effect.  The Borrower represents and warrants that, after
giving effect to the amendment set forth in Section 1 above (if necessary), no
Default or Potential Event of Default is in existence as at the date hereof.


                                 *   *   *   *

<PAGE>

     The Borrower and TDI have caused this First Amendment to be executed and
delivered as of the date first set forth above.

                                        INTERNATIONAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS
                                        HOLDINGS, INC.

                                        By: /s/ DOUGLAS S. SINCLAIR
                                           --------------------------------
                                        Its: EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND
                                            -------------------------------
                                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

                                        TORONTO DOMINION INVESTMENTS, INC.

                                        By: /s/ MARTHA GARIEPY
                                           --------------------------------
                                        Its: VICE PRESIDENT
                                            -------------------------------
**STATEMENT      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

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

| (a) | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A Amendment No. 1 of the Company                for the                quarter ended September 30, 2005, to which this certification accompanies                (the “Periodic Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section                13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Dated:              February 16, 2006 |                                                                          |                          |
|--------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                                  |                                                                     |                     |
|                                       |                                                                          | /s/              Darryl Cohen |
|                                       | Darryl              Cohen,                                                    |
|                                       | Chief              Executive Officer and Chief Financial              Officer |

----
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF BDO SEIDMAN, LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statementson Forms S-3 (No. 333-36026, No. 333-64536, No. 333-74753, No. 333-76780, No. 333-100392, No. 333-102837, No. 333-108778, No. 333-104791, No. 333-112165, and No. 333-121876) and Forms S-8 (No. 333-38506, No. 333-32545, No. 333-65916,No. 333-65928, No. 333-102744, No. 333-116328 and No. 333-106922) of Cardima, Inc. of our report dated February 18, 2005, relating to the 2004 and 2003 financial statements and schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K. Our report containsan explanatory paragraph regarding the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. 

 

/s/    BDO SEIDMAN, LLP 

San Francisco, California 

 

March 30, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER
31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          14,992
<SECURITIES>                                    13,713
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,545
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,163
<INVENTORY>                                        643
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,049
<PP&E>                                          15,432
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,430
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  55,841
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,810
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,931
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    55,841
<SALES>                                          9,244
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                43,372
<CGS>                                            1,902
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,606
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                26,832
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    99
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,981
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,304
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,677
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.47



</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.14


                       Executive Officers who are Parties
                     to an Incentive Stock Option Agreement

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               Number of Shares of Mariner
                                               Holdings, Inc. Common Stock
         Executive Officer                Subject to Stock Option Agreement
         -----------------                -------------------------------
        <S>                                           <C>
         Richard R. Clark                              5,000
         James M. Fitzpatrick III                      5,000
         Gregory K. Harless                            3,570
         Robert E. Henderson                           5,000
         W. Hunt Hodge                                 5,000
         Frank A. Pici                                 5,000
         Clinton D. Smith                              5,000
         Michael W. Strickler                          5,000
</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**FIREARMS TRAINING SYSTEMS, INC. STATEMENT CONCERNING**

**ABSENCE OF CURRENT WRITTEN CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP**

 

Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, provides that if part of a registration statement at the time it becomes effective contains an untrue statementof a material fact, or omits a material fact required to be stated therein necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, any person acquiring a security pursuant to such registration statement (unless it is proved that at the time of suchacquisition such person knew of such untruth or omission) may assert a claim against, among others, an accountant, who has consented to be named as having certified any part of the registration statement or as having prepared any report for use inconnection with the registration statement. 

 

Effective April 17, 2002, theCompany determined not to engage Arthur Andersen LLP as its independent auditors for fiscal 2002 and engaged PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP to replace Arthur Andersen LLP. On August 31, 2002, Arthur Andersen LLP voluntarily ceased to audit publiccompanies and it is no longer licensed to practice as a public accountant. As a result, after reasonable efforts, we are unable to obtain Arthur Andersen’s written consent to the incorporation by reference, from our annual report on Form 10-Kfor the year ended March 31, 2003, of Arthur Andersen’s audit report with respect to the Company’s financial statements as of March 31, 2001 and for the three years then ended, which by inclusion in said Form 10-K would be incorporated byreference into previously filed Registration Statements of Firearms Training Systems, Inc. under the Securities Act (File numbers 333-22349 and 333-31219). 

 

Under these circumstances, Rule 437a under the Securities Act of 1933 permits the Company to file this Form 10-K without a written consent from Arthur Andersen. However,as a result, Arthur Andersen will not have any liability under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act for any untrue statements of a material fact contained in the financial statements audited by Arthur Andersen or any omissions of a material factrequired to be stated therein. Accordingly, individuals, their successors or assigns may be unable to assert a claim against Arthur Andersen under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act with respect to such financials. The Company believes, however,that other persons who may be liable under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act, including the Company’s officers and directors, may still rely on Arthur Andersen’s audit reports as being made by an expert under the due diligence defenseprovision of Section 11(b) of the Securities Act.
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

March 26, 2012 

t0319 

Order 

 

March 26, 2012 

143404 & (48)(49) 

ESTATE OF ANTHONY B. LAGOS, through 

its Personal Representative, BASILE J. LAGOS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 143404 

 COA: 296837 

Washtenaw CC: 08-000669-NO 

WILLIAM DAVIS, III, and MAPLE VILLAGE 

SELF STORAGE, INC., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED and 

the motion to file a supplemental brief is DENIED. The application for leave to appeal 

the June 9, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, 

because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this 

Court. 

 HATHAWAY, J., would grant leave to appeal.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. JOSE HER

NANDEZ, De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-50148

D.C . No. 3:14-c r-02812-AJB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Anthony J. B atta glia , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July 26, 2016 ** B e fore : SC HR O EDER , C ANB Y, a n d C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s. Jose He rnande za

p pe a l s from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle n ge s the 4 6-m o nth se nte nc e im p ose d following his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for im porta tion of m e tha

m phe tam ine , in viola

t ion of 21 U.S.C . §§ 952 a nd 960. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED AUG 01 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).He rnande z c onte nds tha t the distric t c ourt proc e dura lly e rre d by re ly ing on c le arly e rrone ous fa c t s in se nte nc ing. Se e Unite d State s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th C i r. 2008) (e n

ba nc ). Spe c ific a lly , he argue s tha t the gove rnm e nt m isre pre se nte d his a c tions le a ding up to the offe n se and tha

t the m isre pre se ntation m ay have c a use d the distric t c ourt to de ny his re que st for a

m inor-role a djustm e nt unde r U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2(b). The re c ord doe s not support this c onte ntion. Although the g ove rnm e nt e rrone ously sta te d tha t He rnande z ha d a d

m itte d to sm

uggling suspic ious pa c k a ge s into theUnite d State s on prior oc c a sions, de fe nse c ounse l c orre c te d the m isre pre se ntation during the he aring. M o re ove r, the re c o rd re fle c ts that the distric t c ourt’ s m inor-role de c i sion wa s ba se d on the ste p s He rnande z took to pre pa re for the offe nse , rathe r tha n the gove rnm e nt’ s m isre pre se ntat ion. AFFIRM E D.

1 5 - 5 0 1 4 8 2
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-2674

_____________________________

JOSHUA EDWIN DIGGINS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Coleman Lee Robinson, Judge.

July 22, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, BILBREY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Joel Daniel Arnold, 

Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Order entered November 30, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-01271-CV

IN RE METHODIST HOSPITALS OF DALLAS 

D/B/A METHODIST RICHARDSON MEDICAL CENTER, Relator

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 4

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 004-01349-2016

ORDER

Before Justices Francis, Fillmore, and Stoddart

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we GRANT relator’s November 21, 2016 

motion to dismiss for mootness, LIFT the Court’s October 26, 2016 order staying the trial 

court’s October 20, 2016 order compelling appellant to respond to plaintiff’s interrogatory no. 5, 

and DISMISS this original proceeding. We ORDER each party to bear its own costs of this 

original proceeding.

/s/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE 

JUSTICE
#### In re Fenelon.

Habeas Corpus. (1,2) *Order discharging prisoner on, not appealable.*

1. The statute which gives an appeal to this court from *“*a final order aífecting a substantial right, made in special proceedings” (Tay. Stats., 1635, § 11), relates only to such proceedings by parties for the enforcement and protection of rights, or the redress or prevention of wrongs, *of a private nature,*and does not apply to proceedings by *habeas corpus.*

2. Where, therefore, a judgment debtor, who had been imprisoned for contempt of court in refusing to answer questions put to him in supplemental proceedings, obtained his discharge on *habeas corpus: Held,*that the order of discharge could not be brought before this court by appeal.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Dodge*County.

One Luther Butts instituted proceedings supplementary to execution, before a court commissioner, on a judgment recovered by him against *Margaret Fenelon*and another. The said *Margaret*appeared before the commissioner for examination pursuant to the statute, and was duly sworn in that behalf, but refused to make answer to proper and pertinent questions propounded to her on behalf of the judgment creditor. The commissioner, thereupon, adjudged her guilty of contempt of court in thus refusing to answer, and committed her to prison until such time as she should signify her willingness to submit to an examination.

On her petition, *Mrs. Fenelon*was brought before another court commissioner on *habeas*corpus, and was by him discharged from custody. The judgment creditor, Mr. Butts, thereupon removed the *habeas corpus*proceedings into the circuit court by writ of *certiorari,*and that court affirmed the order of the commissioner discharging *Mrs. Fenelon*from custody. From such order of affirmance Mr. Butts attempted to appeal to this court, by giving the undertaking and serving the notice of ap- ■ *232peal provided for in chapter 264, Laws of 1860 (Tay. Stats., 1632, 1641, §§ 3, 27).

*Eli Hoolcer,*for appellant.

*L. T. Fribert,*for respondent.

Lyon, J.

Although this proceeding by *habeas corpus*grew out of the civil action of *Butts v. Fenelon,*it is still an original proceeding by which *Mrs. Fenelon,*as relator or petitioner, invokes the power and authority of the state to release her from alleged unlawful imprisonment. The statute which gives an appeal from “ a final order affecting a substantial right made in special proceedings” (Tay. Stats., 1 635, § 11) relates only to such proceedings by parties for the enforcement and protection of rights, or the redress or prevention of wrongs, of a private nature. Manifestly, such is not the proceeding by *habeas corpus.*After mature consideration, we have reached the conclusion that this appeal cannot be sustained.

*By the*Court.— Appeal dismissed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-16-00756-CR

In re Hisidoro D. RAMON, Jr.

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 7, 2016

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On November 18, 2016, relator Hisidoro D. Ramon, Jr. filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus, complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on his pro se motion seeking certain 

documents and evidence stemming from his prior criminal case. To be entitled to mandamus relief 

compelling a trial court to rule on a properly filed motion, a relator must establish that the trial 

court (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion, (2) was asked to rule on the motion, and (3) failed 

to rule on the motion within a reasonable period of time. In re Molina, 94 S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex. 

App.—San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding). A relator must file with his mandamus petition a 

certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that 

was filed in any underlying proceeding. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1), 52.3(k)(1)(A).

 1

This proceeding arises out of Cause No. B15-33, styled State of Texas v. Hisidoro D. Ramon, Jr., filed in the 198th 

Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas, the Honorable M. Rex Emerson presiding.
04-16-00756-CR

- 2 -

Here, relator has failed to establish that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Attached to 

relator’s petition are copies of relator’s motion and three letters to the trial court clerk. However, 

the mandamus record fails to show that relator’s motion was in fact filed with the trial court clerk.2

Furthermore, the mandamus record fails to show that the trial court was ever asked to rule on 

relator’s motion or made aware of the motion. See In re Hearn, 137 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex. App.—

San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding) (“The [relator] must show that the matter was brought to the 

attention of the trial court and the trial court failed or refused to rule.”); In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 

225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, original proceeding) (“[W]e know of no rule which imputes 

the clerk’s knowledge to the trial court. Thus, it would be incumbent upon [relator] to illustrate 

that the clerk informed the trial court of the motion or that the trial court otherwise obtained 

knowledge of it.”). Because relator has failed to establish that he is entitled to mandamus relief, 

his petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

Finally, relator moved for leave to file his petition for writ of mandamus. No leave is 

required to file a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. TEX.R. APP. P. 52. Therefore, relator’s 

motion for leave to file his petition for writ of mandamus is denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

 2

Additionally, only one of the letters to the trial court clerk bears a file stamp indicating the letter was filed. In this

letter, relator asks the trial court clerk to file his notice of intent to file a petition for writ of mandamus and to bring 

the notice to the trial court’s attention.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

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

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Michael Kravchenko, Chief Financial Officer of Star Energy Corporation (the Company), certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





|                       |  |                              
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Date: October 15, 2008 |  | /s/ Michael Kravchenko       
|                       |  | Michael Kravchenko           
|                       |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|                       |  | (Principal Financial Officer)

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.