alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FIRST
AMENDMENT TO ASSIGNMENT
AGREEMENT


 


This
First Amendment to
Assignment Agreement ("Amendment1')
is ente red into
as of October
1, 2012 (the "Effective Date")
by and between 800 COMMERCE Inc., a Florida company
having its principa l place of business at 477
South Rosemary Avenue Suite 203, West Palm Beach,
Fl 33401 ("800 Commerce") and PAYVENTURES LLC, a
Florida company having its principal place of business
at 750 Park
of Commerce Blvd., Suite
310, Boca Raton, FL 33487 ("Payventures" ) .


 


WHEREAS
800 Commerce and Payventures entered
into that certain Assignemnt Ag
reement dated as
of August 1, 2012
(the "Agreement"), and
800 Commerce and Payventures desire to amend certain terms of the Agreement;


 


NOW,
THEREFORE the parties agree
to amend the Agreement
as follows:


 





1.              
Incorporation. Each capitalized term
not otherwise defined
in t his
Amendment will have
the definition ascribed to such term in
the Agreement. Except as expressly modified in this A mendment, all terms
and provisions of the Agreement will
remain unchanged and in full
force and effect .


 


2.             
Assignment of Merchant
Accounts. The assignment by
Payventures of
Fifty (50%)
of Payventures' rights
to receive residual pay ments from the TFX merchant account is
terminat ed as of the Effective
Date of this Amendment. As of
the Effective Date of this Amendment,
Payventures a ssigns to 800 Commerce Thirty (30%) percent of Payventures' rights
to receive residual payments from the S imple Mobile merchant
ac count, and such account shall
henceforth be the Ass igned Customer under the Agreement. Payventures shall remain
the primary agent of record
with all rights to deal with the
Assigned Customer.


 


3.              
Complete Amendment; Modification; Conflicts.
The terms and conditions
of this Second
Amen d ment represent the entire
agreement between 800 Commerce and Payventures
with respect to the matters addressed in this Amendment. No deviation from the printed
terms of t his Amend ment, nor any change
or modificatio n of this Amendment, will be
valid unless the same is in writ ing
and duly executed by 800 Commer ce and Payventures.
To the extent a term
or condition of this
Amendment conflicts w ith any term or
condit ion of the Agreement, the term
or condition set forth in this Amendment will control.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this
Amendment is executed by duly
authorized officers of the parties
and shall be effective as of the Effective
Date. 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Name:
Michael G. Park


Title:
President
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

ELMER DAVENPORT, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF 

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 35 EM 2016 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 5th day of May, 2016, the Application for Leave to File Original 

Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Extraordinary 

Relief is DENIED.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERAND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICEROFVYYO INC.**

** **

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Vyyo Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterending March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Wayne H. Davis, as ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, and Robert K. Mills, as Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of hisknowledge, that:

 

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

 
| /s/ Wayne H. Davis       |
|--------------------------|
| Wayne Davis              |
| Chief Executive  Officer |
| December 19,  2007  |
|                     |
| /s/ Robert K. Mills      |
| Robert K. Mills          |
| Chief Financial  Officer |
| December 19,  2007  |

 

 

 

----
EXHIBIT32

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Calif Acquisitions, Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Anthony N. DeMint, President and Chief AccountingOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

-  The    Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934; andThe    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/Anthony N.DeMint                       

AnthonyN. DeMint

Presidentand Chief Accounting Officer

July__,2004
Order entered December 6, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00540-CR

No. 05-16-00541-CR

JAAIBER DENZEL RANDALL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F16-52855-L &F16-52856-L

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s second motion for extension of time to file his pro se 

response to counsel’s Anders brief. We GRANT appellant’s motion and ORDER the brief be 

filed no later than January 4, 2017. If the response is not received by that date, we may submit 

the appeals on the Anders brief filed by counsel.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 30, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 30, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17A0018. IN RE: NICOLE ROBERTS .

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
*Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-31077

Summary Calendar

In The Matter of: PHIL H. NUGENT,

Debtor,

CARL A. DENGEL,

Appellant,

VERSUS

RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION, as receiver for Pelican

Homestead and Savings Association,

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Louisiana

(96-CV-428)

April 4, 1997

Before WISDOM, KING, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant Carl A. Dengel, trustee, appeals the district

court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s decision. As an
1 Fed. R. App. P. 3(c).

2 Id.

3 In re: Delta Towers, Ltd., 924 F.2d 74, 76 (5th Cir.

1991); In re: Missionary Baptist Foundation of America, 712 F.2d

206, 209 (5th Cir. 1983).

2

initial matter this court must consider a defect in petitioner’s

Notice of Appeal. The Notice of Appeal states that “Carl Dengel as

trustee of Phil Nugent wishes to appeal . . .” ,but in the district

court’s docket entry both Phil Nugent and Lillian Eccles Nugent are

listed as debtors. Also, petitioner’s brief to this court states

“Carl Dengel, as trustee for Phil & Lillian Nugent”. “A notice of

appeal must specify the party or parties taking the appeal by

naming each appellant in either the caption or the body of the

notice of appeal.”1 However, “[a]n appeal will not be dismissed

for informality of form or title of the notice of appeal, or for

failure to name a party whose intent to appeal is otherwise clear

from the notice.”2 In the circumstances of this case, we find that

the trustee intended to appeal on behalf of both Phil and Lillian

Nugent; therefore, we consider the merits of petitioner’s appeal.

We review the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact for clear

error and conclusions of law de novo.

3 We have reviewed the record

and the briefs of the parties. For the reasons set forth in the

district court’s Order and Reasons, the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 99.4




Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, DC  20549


Gentlemen:

         We were previously the independent accountants for The Judge Group,
Inc. (formerly Judge.com, Inc.) and on February 25, 2000 we reported on the
consolidated financial statements of The Judge Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries as
of and for the three years ended December 31, 1999. On August 1, 2000, we
informed The Judge Group, Inc. that we had merged with McGladrey & Pullen, LLP
and we would no longer be the independent accountants of The Judge Group, Inc.
We have read The Judge Group, Inc.'s statements included under Item 9 of its
Form 10-K for December 31, 2000 and we agree with such statements.


                                                           Rudolph, Palitz LLC




Blue Bell, Pennsylvania
March 23, 2001
WAYLAND H. SULLIVAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-1252

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 6, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Gilchrist County.

David P. Kreider, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, RAY, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A0626. DARREL SMITH v. RUSSELL HUGHES.

Russell Hughes sued Darrel Smith in magistrate court for breach of contract.

After the magistrate court ruled in favor of Hughes, Smith appealed to superior court.

The superior court heard the matter de novo and likewise ruled in favor of Hughes.

Smith now appeals directly to this Court. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

“[A]ppeals from decisions of the superior courts reviewing decisions of lower

courts by certiorari or de novo proceedings shall be by application for discretionary

appeal.” Bullock v. Sand, 260 Ga. App. 874, 875 (581 SE2d 333) (2003) (punctuation

omitted); see also OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1). Because Smith did not follow the proper

procedure for requesting appellate review in this case, we lack jurisdiction over this

appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

December 05, 2016

12/05/2016
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-16-00635-CV

Elizabeth Chavez, Appellant

v.

Mario Alberto Alvarez, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-FM-13-006851, HONORABLE ORLINDA NARANJO, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Elizabeth Chavez has filed a motion to dismiss her appeal of the

district court’s order terminating her parental rights to her two children, E.A. and U.A. We grant the

motion and dismiss the appeal.1

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: November 30, 2016

 See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). 1
EXHIBIT 15.3




November 17, 2010





Securities and Exchange Commission


100 F Street, N.E.


Washington, DC 20549





Commissioners:





We were previously principal accountants for Top Image Systems (Asia Pacific) Pte. Ltd. and its subsidiaries and, under the date of April 21, 2009, we reported on the consolidated financial statements of Top Image Systems (Asia Pacific) Pte. Ltd. as of and for the year ended December 31, 2008 and as of and for the six month period ended December 31, 2007. On April 21, 2009, we declined to stand for reelection. We have read Top Image System Ltd’s statements included under Item 16F of its Form 20-F/A (Amendment No. 2) dated November 17, 2010  and we agree with such statements, except that we are not in a position to agree or disagree with Top Image Systems Ltd’s statement that Kost Forer Gabbay & Kasierer (a member of Ernst and Young Global) was not engaged regarding the application of accounting principles to a specified transaction or the type of audit opinion that might be rendered on Top Image Systems (Asia Pacific ) Pte. Ltd.’s consolidated financial statements.





Very truly yours,





KPMG LLP


Singapore
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-40570

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CEDRIC PIERRE WEBB, a/k/a

Cedric Nickerson,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-94-CR-172-1

- - - - - - - - - -

February 24, 1997

Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cedric Pierre Webb moves for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis (IFP) on appeal, arguing that the district court erred

by denying his motion for a trial transcript at government

expense. 

A prisoner is not entitled to a trial transcript to assist

him in the preparation of a postconviction motion under 28 U.S.C.
No. 96-40570

- 2 -

§ 2255. United States v. MacCollum, 426 U.S. 317, 321-24 (1976);

see also United States v. Herrera, 474 F.2d 1049, 1049 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 861 (1973)(§ 2255 case). The

filing of a § 2255 motion is a condition precedent to the

expenditure of public funds under 28 U.S.C. § 753(f), which

allows such expenditure to indigent federal defendants under

certain conditions. MacCollum, 426 U.S. at 321. Because Webb

has not filed a § 2255 motion, the district court did not err by

denying his request for a trial transcript at Government expense. 

See id. Because Webb fails to present an issue with arguable

basis in law or fact, he fails to present a nonfrivolous issue

for appeal, and his motion for IFP is DENIED. See Fed. R. App.

P. 24(a); Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). 

Webb’s appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

We caution Webb that any additional frivolous or malicious

appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To

avoid sanctions, Webb is further cautioned to review any pending

appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are

frivolous or malicious. 

 IFP DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
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 Annual Report of Tumbleweed Communications Corp. (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Timothy G. Conley, as Senior Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 14, 2007

/s/    TIMOTHY G. CONLEY

Timothy G. Conley

Senior Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                       3,989,000
<SECURITIES>                                   109,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,035,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   289,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,294,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,784,000
<PP&E>                                      20,288,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              19,045,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,049,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,796,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,228,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,049,000
<SALES>                                     16,254,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,254,000
<CGS>                                        7,048,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,048,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,612,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                694,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    32,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            662,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   662,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 63 (Thursday, April 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 17758]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07507]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute Of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel; Mentoring Programs for HIV/AIDS Researchers 2.
    Date: March 30, 2015.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Aileen Schulte, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of 
Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 
6140, MSC 9608, Bethesda, MD 20892-9608, 301-443-1225, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5f3e2c3c372a332b3a1f323e36337131363771383029"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a1c0d2c2c9d4cdd5c4e1ccc0c8cd8fcfc8c98fc6ced7">[email protected]</span></a>

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.242, Mental 
Health Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 27, 2015.
Carolyn A. Baum,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-07507 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Buckley, Administrator, vs. Lewis and another.

*Notice of trial.*

Under chap. 71, Laws of 1859, it is optional with the party noticing a cause for trial, whether he will proceed or not; and if the opposite party wishes to be in a position to force a trial, he must himself notice it..

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Jefferson*County.

The defendants appealed from an order refusing to set aside a verdict for the plaintiff, and grant a new trial. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

*Jas. Q-.*Jenkins, for appellants.

*Winsor & Smith,*for respondent.

Downer, J.

Notice of trial was served by the defendants on the plaintiff’s attorney in this case according to the provisions of sec. 1, chap. 71, Laws of 1859 ; and the plaintiff’s attorney, at the term for which it was noticed, in the absence of the defendant’s attorney and without having himself noticed the action for trial, when it was reached on the calendar, proceeded with the case to verdict and judgment. It is contended by the appellants, defendants below, that he had no right so to do — that it is optional with the party noticing a cause for trial, whether he will proceed or not; and that if the opposite party wishes to be in a jiosition to force the cause to trial, he must himself notice it.

It is provided by section one of the chapter aforesaid that “ at any time after issue joined in any civil action, either party may bring the same on for trial at any term of the court at which the same is triable, by giving notice of trial at least ten days before such term.” The language “ *either party by giving notice may bring the same on for trial,'’*clearly indicates that the party who would be an actor and move the cause must himself serve a notice of trial on the opposite party. It is insisted, however, that sec. 9, chap. 132, R. S., is in full force, and that when once the action is on the calendar, either party *491may, according to its provisions, bring tbe issue to trial in tbe absence of tbe adverse party.

If tbis were so, tben we must construe cbap. 71, Laws of 1859, as only providing for putting cases on tbe calendar; wbicb would be contrary to its obvious meaning. We must bold that tbe latter act modifies or repeals in part tbe provisions of sec. 9, cbap. 132, R. S., and that tbe plaintiff bad no right, in tbe absence of tbe defendants’ attorney, to proceed with tbe action.

*By the Court.*— -Tbe order of tbe circuit court is reversed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 5, 2016

No. 04-15-00806-CR

Michael Wilfred LAFLAMME,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CRW160-D4

Honorable Oscar J. Hale, Jr., Judge Presiding

O R D E R

State’s motion for leave to file supplemental brief is granted. 

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 5th day of December, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court